text:
package com.duprasville.guava.probably;

import java.util.Collection;

import javax.annotation.CheckReturnValue;

/**
 * A probabilistic filter offers an approximate containment test with one-sided error: if it claims
 * that an element is contained in it, this might be in error, but if it claims that an
 * element is not contained in it, then this is definitely true.

The false
 * positive probability ({@code FPP}) of a probabilistic filter is defined as the probability that
 * {@link #contains(Object)} will erroneously return {@code true} for an element that is not
 * actually contained in the filter.

 *
 * @param <E> the type of elements that this filter accepts
 * @author Brian Dupras
 * @see CuckooFilter
 * @see BloomFilter
 */
public interface ProbabilisticFilter<E> {
  /**
   * Adds the specified element to this filter (optional operation). A return value of {@code true}
   * ensures that {@link #contains(Object)} given {@code e} will also return {@code true}.
   *
   * @param e element to be added to this filter
   * @return {@code true} if {@code e} was successfully added to the filter, {@code false} if this
   * is definitely not the case
   * @throws UnsupportedOperationException if the {@link #add(Object)} operation is not supported by
   *                                       this filter
   * @throws ClassCastException            if the class of the specified element prevents it from
   *                                       being added to this filter
   * @throws NullPointerException          if the specified element is {@code null} and this filter
   *                                       does not permit {@code null} elements
   * @throws IllegalArgumentException      if some property of the specified element prevents it
   *                                       from being added to this filter
   * @see #contains(Object)
   * @see #addAll(Collection)
   * @see #addAll(ProbabilisticFilter)
   */
  @CheckReturnValue
  boolean add(E e);

  /**
   * Combines {@code this} filter with another compatible filter (optional operation). The mutations
   * happen to {@code this} instance. Callers must ensure {@code this} filter is appropriately sized
   * to avoid saturating it or running out of space.
   *
   * @param f filter to be combined into {@code this} filter - {@code f} is not mutated
   * @return {@code true} if the operation was successful, {@code false} otherwise
   * @throws UnsupportedOperationException if the {@link #addAll(ProbabilisticFilter)} operation is
   *                                       not supported by this filter
   * @throws NullPointerException          if the specified filter is {@code null}
   * @throws IllegalArgumentException      if {@link #isCompatible(ProbabilisticFilter)} {@code ==
   *                                       false}
   * @throws IllegalStateException         if this filter cannot be combined with the specified
   *                                       filter at this time due to insertion restrictions
   * @see #add(Object)
   * @see #addAll(Collection)
   * @see #contains(Object)
   */
  @CheckReturnValue
  boolean addAll(ProbabilisticFilter<E> f);

  /**
   * Adds all of the elements in the specified collection to this filter (optional operation). The
   * behavior of this operation is undefined if the specified collection is modified while the
   * operation is in progress.
   *
   * @param c collection containing elements to be added to this filter
   * @return {@code true} if all elements of the collection were successfully added, {@code false}
   * otherwise
   * @throws UnsupportedOperationException if the {@link #addAll(Collection)} operation is not
   *                                       supported by this filter
   * @throws ClassCastException            if the class of an element of the specified collection
   *                                       prevents it from being added to this filter
   * @throws NullPointerException          if the specified collection contains a {@code null}
   *                                       element and this filter does not permit {@code null}
   *                                       elements, or if the specified collection is {@code null}
   * @throws IllegalArgumentException      if some property of an element of the specified
   *                                       collection prevents it from being added to this filter
   * @throws IllegalStateException         if not all the elements can be added at this time due to
   *                                       insertion restrictions
   * @see #add(Object)
   * @see #addAll(ProbabilisticFilter)
   * @see #contains(Object)
   */
  @CheckReturnValue
  boolean addAll(Collection<? extends E> c);

  /**
   * Removes all of the elements from this filter (optional operation). The filter will be empty
   * after this call returns.
   *
   * @throws UnsupportedOperationException if the {@link #clear()} method is not supported by this
   *                                       filter
   * @see #sizeLong()
   * @see #isEmpty()
   */
  void clear();

  /**
   * Removes the specified element from this filter (optional operation). The element must be
   * contained in the filter prior to invocation. Removing an element that isn't contained in the
   * filter may put the filter in an inconsistent state causing it to return false negative
   * responses from {@link #contains(Object)}.
   *
   * If {@code false} is returned, this is definitely an indication that the specified
   * element wasn't contained in the filter prior to invocation. If the implementation treats this
   * condition as an error, then this filter can no longer be relied upon to return correct {@code
   * false} responses from {@link #contains(Object)}, unless {@link #isEmpty()} is also {@code
   * true}.
   *
   * @param e element to be removed from this filter
   * @return {@code true} if this filter probably contained the specified element, {@code false}
   * otherwise
   * @throws ClassCastException            if the type of the specified element is incompatible with
   *                                       this filter (optional)
   * @throws NullPointerException          if the specified element is {@code null} and this filter
   *                                       does not permit {@code null} elements
   * @throws UnsupportedOperationException if the {@link #remove(Object)} operation is not supported
   *                                       by this filter
   * @see #contains(Object)
   * @see #removeAll(Collection)
   * @see #removeAll(ProbabilisticFilter)
   */
  @CheckReturnValue
  boolean remove(E e);

  /**
   * Removes from this filter all of its elements that are contained in the specified collection
   * (optional operation). All element contained in the specified collection must be contained in
   * the filter prior to invocation. Removing elements that aren't contained in the filter may put
   * the filter in an inconsistent state causing it to return false negative responses from {@link
   * #contains(Object)}.
   *
   * If {@code false} is returned, this is definitely an indication that the specified
   * collection contained elements that were not contained in this filter prior to invocation. If
   * the implementation treats this condition as an error, then this filter can no longer be relied
   * upon to return correct {@code false} responses from {@link #contains(Object)}, unless {@link
   * #isEmpty()} is also {@code true}.
   *
   * @param c collection containing elements to be removed from this filter
   * @return {@code true} if all of the elements of the specified collection were successfully
   * removed from the filter, {@code false} if any of the elements was not successfully removed
   * @throws ClassCastException            if the types of one or more elements in the specified
   *                                       collection are incompatible with this filter (optional)
   * @throws NullPointerException          if the specified collection contains one or more null
   *                                       elements and this filter does not permit {@code null}
   *                                       elements (optional), or if the specified collection is
   *                                       {@code null}
   * @throws UnsupportedOperationException if the {@link #removeAll(Collection)} operation is not
   *                                       supported by this filter
   * @see #contains(Object)
   * @see #remove(Object)
   * @see #removeAll(ProbabilisticFilter)
   */
  @CheckReturnValue
  boolean removeAll(Collection<? extends E> c);

  /**
   * Subtracts the specified filter from {@code this} filter. The mutations happen to {@code this}
   * instance. Callers must ensure that the specified filter represents elements that are currently
   * contained in {@code this} filter.
   *
   * If {@code false} is returned, this is definitely an indication that the specified filter
   * contained elements that were not contained in this filter prior to invocation. If the
   * implementation treats this condition as an error, then this filter can no longer be relied upon
   * to return correct {@code false} responses from {@link #contains(Object)}, unless {@link
   * #isEmpty()} is also {@code true}.
   *
   * @param f filter containing elements to remove from {@code this} filter. {@code f} is not
   *          mutated
   * @return {@code true} if the operation was successful, {@code false} otherwise
   * @throws UnsupportedOperationException if the {@link #removeAll(ProbabilisticFilter)} operation
   *                                       is not supported by this filter
   * @throws NullPointerException          if the specified filter is {@code null}
   * @throws IllegalArgumentException      if {@link #isCompatible(ProbabilisticFilter)} {@code ==
   *                                       false} given {@code f}
   * @see #contains(Object)
   * @see #remove(Object)
   * @see #removeAll(Collection)
   */
  @CheckReturnValue
  boolean removeAll(ProbabilisticFilter<E> f);

  /**
   * Returns {@code true} if this filter might contain the specified element, {@code false}
   * if this is definitely not the case.
   *
   * @param e element whose containment in this filter is to be tested
   * @return {@code true} if this filter might contain the specified element, {@code false}
   * if this is definitely not the case.
   * @throws ClassCastException   if the type of the specified element is incompatible with this
   *                              filter (optional)
   * @throws NullPointerException if the specified element is {@code null} and this filter does not
   *                              permit {@code null} elements
   * @see #containsAll(Collection)
   * @see #containsAll(ProbabilisticFilter)
   * @see #add(Object)
   * @see #remove(Object)
   */
  boolean contains(E e);

  /**
   * Returns {@code true} if this filter might contain all of the elements of the specified
   * collection (optional operation). More formally, returns {@code true} if {@link
   * #contains(Object)} {@code == true} for all of the elements of the specified collection.
   *
   * @param c collection containing elements to be checked for containment in this filter
   * @return {@code true} if this filter might contain all elements of the specified
   * collection
   * @throws ClassCastException   if the types of one or more elements in the specified collection
   *                              are incompatible with this filter (optional)
   * @throws NullPointerException if the specified collection contains one or more {@code null}
   *                              elements and this filter does not permit {@code null} elements
   *                              (optional), or if the specified collection is {@code null}
   * @see #contains(Object)
   * @see #containsAll(ProbabilisticFilter)
   */
  boolean containsAll(Collection<? extends E> c);

  /**
   * Returns {@code true} if this filter might contain all elements contained in the
   * specified filter (optional operation).
   *
   * @param f filter containing elements to be checked for probable containment in this filter
   * @return {@code true} if this filter might contain all elements contained in the
   * specified filter, {@code false} if this is definitely not the case.
   * @throws UnsupportedOperationException if the {@link #containsAll(ProbabilisticFilter)}
   *                                       operation is not supported by this filter
   * @throws NullPointerException          if the specified filter is {@code null}
   * @throws IllegalArgumentException      if {@link #isCompatible(ProbabilisticFilter)} {@code ==
   *                                       false} given {@code f}
   * @see #contains(Object)
   * @see #containsAll(Collection)
   */
  boolean containsAll(ProbabilisticFilter<E> f);

  /**
   * Returns {@code true} if this filter contains no elements.
   *
   * @return {@code true} if this filter contains no elements
   * @see #sizeLong()
   */
  boolean isEmpty();

  /**
   * Returns the number of elements contained in this filter (its cardinality). If this filter
   * contains more than {@code Long.MAX_VALUE} elements, returns {@code Long.MAX_VALUE}.
   *
   * @return the number of elements contained in this filter (its cardinality)
   * @see #capacity()
   * @see #isEmpty()
   * @see #size()
   */
  long sizeLong();

  /**
   * Returns the number of elements contained in this filter (its cardinality). If this filter
   * contains more than {@code Integer.MAX_VALUE} elements, returns {@code Integer.MAX_VALUE}. Use
   * {@link #sizeLong()} to obtain filter sizes lager than {@code Integer.MAX_VALUE};
   *
   *
This method is provided for consistency with the Collections API.

   *
   * @return the number of elements contained in this filter (its cardinality)
   * @see #capacity()
   * @see #isEmpty()
   * @see #sizeLong()
   */
  long size();

  /**
   * Returns {@code true} if the specified filter is compatible with {@code this} filter. {@code f}
   * is considered compatible if {@code this} filter can use it in combinatoric operations (e.g.
   * {@link #addAll(ProbabilisticFilter)}, {@link #containsAll(ProbabilisticFilter)}, {@link
   * #removeAll(ProbabilisticFilter)}).
   *
   * @param f filter to check for compatibility with {@code this} filter
   * @return {@code true} if the specified filter is compatible with {@code this} filter
   * @throws NullPointerException if the specified filter is {@code null}
   * @see #addAll(ProbabilisticFilter)
   * @see #containsAll(ProbabilisticFilter)
   * @see #removeAll(ProbabilisticFilter)
   */
  boolean isCompatible(ProbabilisticFilter<E> f);

  /**
   * Returns the number of elements this filter can represent at its requested {@code FPP}. This may
   * not be a hard limit of the filter implementation. It is permissible for a filter to contain
   * more elements than its requested capacity, though its {@code FPP} may suffer.
   *
   * @return the number of elements this filter can represent at its requested {@code FPP}.
   * @see #fpp()
   * @see #currentFpp()
   * @see #sizeLong()
   */
  long capacity();

  /**
   * Returns the current false positive probability ({@code FPP}) of this filter.
   *
   * @return the probability that {@link #contains(Object)} will erroneously return {@code true}
   * given an element that has not actually been added to the filter.
   * @see #fpp()
   */
  double currentFpp();

  /**
   * Returns the intended {@code FPP} limit of this filter. This may not be a hard limit of the
   * filter implementation. It is permissible for a filter's {@code FPP} to degrade (e.g. via
   * saturation) beyond its intended limit.
   *
   * @return the intended {@code FPP} limit of this filter.
   * @see #currentFpp()
   */
  double fpp();
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
@interface PodsDummy_WYCDynamicTextController : NSObject
@end
@implementation PodsDummy_WYCDynamicTextController
@end


text:
Will 2020 be the year Colorado bans plastic bags, Styrofoam and other single-use plastics?
Lawmakers struck out with the first bill this session to make way for local plastic bans in Colorado. But two more are up to bat this month to regulate single-use plastics
Moe Clark
4:00 AM MST on Feb 14, 2020
A trash truck dumps its load in the working phase of the Larimer County Landfill in July outside of Fort Collins. The landfill is among those in Colorado nearing capacity. It will run out of space in 2024. (Kathryn Scott, Special to The Colorado Sun)
The Town of Avon did something daring in January: It banned expanded polystyrene food containers, a.k.a. Styrofoam.
The move made the town the first community in Colorado to forbid such take-out food containers, which don't do well in microwaves — or with trash recyclers.
But it also put them at odds with an obscure state law that prevents cities and towns from banning plastics. Avon's Ordinance No. 19-11 wasn't completely brazen, though. It was contingent on whether state lawmakers could overturn the 30-year-old statute.
A bill to repeal local preemption failed to make it out of a Senate committee last week.
Environmental advocates littered the steps of the state Capitol on Feb. 28, 2019, to show the mess that disposable plastic bags can make. (Tamara Chuang, The Colorado Sun)
Now the town is counting on a different measure. House Bill 1162 would also ban polystyrene, but at the state level. It also has the blessing — or at least no opposition — of some of the groups that opposed rolling back the preemption.
But that's no guarantee Colorado will ever figure out how to modernize its waste laws — or whether it needs to — in order to satisfy the state's environmental goals by limiting single-use plastics used in things like grocery bags and straws and Styrofoam containers. Similar bills were proposed last year, with no success. More are on the way this session. It's created eco frustration among towns trying to reduce waste and for recyclers who are struggling to find a market after China stopped taking most recyclable plastics in 2018.
"When we went to testify, there was a list of 15 to 20 industries lobbying against lifting that preemption on the basis that local governments were going to start outlawing plastic bags for blood or defibrillators for health or medical equipment that uses plastics. There was all sorts of wild speculation," said Eric Heil, Avon's town manager who has also served as the town attorney. "In our review, we have not seen other states or other local communities passing these sort of horrible prohibitions of plastics that are needed for everyday life. So right now we're kind of stuck with uncertainty."
2020 proposed laws on plastics
Senate Bill 10 — Repeal ban on local government regulation of plastics (failed)
Would repeal language in Section 7 of state statute prohibiting local governments from banning the use or sale of certain plastic materials.
House Bill 1162 — Prohibit food establishments from using polystyrene (committee hearing Feb. 24)
Would prohibit food establishments from offering polystyrene containers (a.k.a. Styrofoam) to package leftovers or for takeout starting Jan. 1, 2022.
House Bill 1163 — Management of single-use products (committee hearing Feb. 24)
Would ban stores and other food establishments from providing a number of single-use plastic items, including carryout bags, stirrers, straws and polystyrene food containers after July 1, 2021.
That obscure preemption law
Sen. Kerry Donovan, who sponsored the preemption repeal bill, knows trash.
Her family owned Vail Honeywagon, the local garbage company in Vail. When she was in high school, she'd sometimes drive the garbage truck to school and would have to pick up trash from any missed customers on her way home.
"It resulted in not too many of my friends asking for rides, which was good, but it also made for a pretty long trip home on some nights," Donovan said during the committee hearing on Feb. 4.
Her brother Matt got them into recycling while still a senior at University of Colorado.
"Thirty years later, we're still grappling with the concept of recycling in a resort town in Vail, how to separate glass from aluminum and plastics, how to tell people to not use plastic bags because it seizes up the (machines at the recycler)," she said at the hearing.
She's realized the answer isn't recycling. It's reducing waste. Removing the local preemption is the first step in letting towns decide what is best for their citizens, she said.
"It also makes everyone at this table, the end-of-the-line consumer, responsible for solving a problem that starts years and months ahead with product design, manufacturing and habits of convenience," she said.
MORE: Colorado's ban on banning plastics has cities' plans to outlaw single-use bags and straws in limbo
As previously reported in The Colorado Sun, the state ban on local plastic bans stems from 1989's House Bill 1300. It prevented local governments "from regulating the use of plastic materials or products." The law was amended in 1993 with House Bill 1318, called the "Promotion of Disposal Alternatives," which added the language about municipalities not restricting or mandating containers, packaging and labeling.
"Our conclusion was that this was really based on the state's concern that they didn't want local governments to interfere with the types of plastics recycled," Telluride Town Attorney Kevin Geiger said last year.
In Colorado, at least 13 towns have gone ahead with some sort of plastics ban or bag fee, including the city of Denver, where a 10-cent fee goes into effect July 1.
The Town of Avon also charges a 10-cent fee for plastic bags since passing an ordinance in 2017. "We have not been challenged on that," Heil said.
State vs. local, urban vs. rural
Polystyrene is difficult, though not impossible, to recycle.
Over at Alpine Waste & Recycling in Denver, the company invested in a machine that compacts used foam into blocks heavy enough that they won't fly off trucks. But food containers are a different beast, especially if they aren't cleaned. Recycling is a tough business, Wendy Fauth, Alpine's Recyclable Materials Manager, said in an email.
"We have also seen a push to eliminate polystyrene materials entirely, but here at (parent company) GFL Environmental we are proud to say we are still one of the few recycling facilities in the nation with the equipment and the willingness to handle polystyrene," she said.
Denver-based Alpine Waste & Recycling invested in a foam-crushing machine that chops up the polystyrene foam and then presses it into these dense, 50-pound blocks. Piled on a pallet to load on trucks, the pallet of foam bricks weighs 500 to 1,000 pounds. Alpine is one of the few recyclers in the country equipped to recycle foam from single-stream customers. (Kathryn Scott, Special to The Colorado Sun)
While there are differing studies on how long it takes for polystyrene foam to decompose — one study recently put it at "decades or centuries when exposed to sunlight, rather than thousands of years," according to SciTechDaily — that's still a long time.
Several lawmakers who are backing plastics-use bills spoke out about their own environmental concerns.
"We've got to take steps to reduce the pollution that we are creating," said state Rep. Emily Sirota, a Denver Democrat who is sponsoring the bill to ban single-use plastics statewide to reduce pollution.
"If China can do it, Colorado can certainly do it," she said. "We aren't reinventing the wheel here; other states and local governments have done what we are trying to do."
MORE: 10 states use bottle deposits to boost recycling rates. Could it work for Colorado?
Industry associations say they support reducing waste, too, but laws need to be specific and statewide. Nick Hoover, manager of government affairs for the Colorado Restaurant Association, said many members are addressing concerns like, for example, not offering straws unless a customer asks. But leaving it up to local governments would create a headache for companies with multiple locations.
And without exclusions, the bioscience industry will face uncertainty, said Emily Roberts, vice president of Colorado BioScience Association.
"We were just really concerned that local regulation could unintentionally include life-saving medicines, devices and medical equipment that patients rely on," Roberts said. "But I do want to clarify that we had hoped we could have amended the bill to have a statewide exemption for those products. And we were not able to do so, which is why we ended up opposing the bill."
During the Feb. 4 hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government, public testimony supporting and opposing the local preemption appeal went on for hours. In the end, the committee voted against the bill 3-2.
Sen. Angela Williams, a Democrat from Denver, voted against the legislation because she said it would be an "undue burden" for businesses that manufacture and deliver these sorts of products. It would make it difficult for a national restaurant chain, for example, to manage take-out packaging from city to city.
"I'm all about the environment, that's not the issue," Williams said. "But if we did this in a patchwork fashion, I'm concerned about keeping up with that. We need to address it from a statewide perspective."
Donovan said she hadn't expected Williams' nay vote, but said the idea has widespread support and she may try again with another bill this legislative session, which ends in May.
"I don't know if this state is ready yet for some of these statewide laws," Donovan said, pointing to the lack of recycling options in many rural areas. "Local communities are so much better equipped to write the right law for their community.
"It's very early in the session and there is a lot of time to keep this idea alive," she said.
Plastic ban, take 2
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, eight states have banned single-use bags. Last year, 95 bills were introduced at the state level to consider a ban or fee. About 15 states, including Colorado, have a preemption in place.
Industry groups say they don't want a "patchwork" of separate policies in cities. Environmental advocates say policies will help communities gain more awareness of how much trash is produced and encourage recycling (Colorado's recycling rate inched up to 17.2% in 2018 compared with 12% the year before, according to EcoCycle's "State of Recycling in Colorado.")
It's an ongoing debate that is creating tensions between urban and rural communities, said Nancy Billica, an instructor of political science at the University of Colorado who specializes in American politics and environmental policy.
"And communities have had to have all kinds of clever workarounds because there are a number of communities in Colorado that have various bag rules and so on but they just have to use clever language that doesn't violate the state rule," she said.
MORE: Colorado's recycling rate improves to 17.2%, but we're producing more trash than ever
But, she added, if the preemption bill is resurrected in a different form, she wants to see the public more engaged in the issue, to help balance out the messaging from lobbying interests.
For what it's worth, Roberts, with the BioScience Association, said the two pending plastics bills include language that separate out her concerns: "Food does not mean a drug," they read.
"At this time, CBSA is not weighing in on those bills. I think they are narrower in scope and they clearly specify the types of materials or products that are being regulated," she said.
Last year's bill to ban polystyrene also made the distinction that food does not include drugs, but there was still opposition. The American Chemistry Council pointed out that alternatives tend to cost more money and the infrastructure to recycle wasn't always there. But the general consensus of why it didn't pass was the bill was introduced too late.
Polystyrene foam, also called Styrofoam, is on the recycling unwanted list. (Tamara Chuang, The Colorado Sun)
Rep. Lisa Cutter, who is sponsoring the bill to ban Styrofoam, says she's confident that the bill will pass despite the preemption bill dying last week. Unlike last year's bill that only included take-out food, this year's bill includes hospitals, schools and dine-in restaurants.
"We are all after the same things, which is to eliminate or reduce excessive plastics in Colorado, but the bills do different things," she added. "Styrofoam is one of the worst offenders when it comes to pollution. And the issue has been worked on a lot."
On Tuesday, federal lawmakers introduced legislation to phase out some single-use plastic products. Called the "Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2020," it would create a national beverage container refund program, spur investment in recycling and composting infrastructure and require large companies to reduce wasteful packaging and design plastic products with less waste.
Awareness is definitely growing, said Suzanne Jones, executive director of Boulder County recycler EcoCycle. While she believes it will take a few years for a federal law to pass, Colorado is much closer to passing a plastics law thanks to its past failures. She feels many of the issues got worked out during past sessions and 2020 could be the year Colorado gets a statewide plastics law on the books.
"We've never seen such a groundswell for public action, and communities are very anxious to lead," said Jones, pointing to support from the Colorado Municipal League, which represents 270 of the state's 272 cities and towns. "Honestly, I think we'll be successful this year. It's only a matter of time."
The Colorado Sun moe@coloradosun.com
2020 legislative sessionColorado BioScience AssociationColorado General AssemblyColorado Restaurant Association

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Mildred Wright, of Abilene, passed away Saturday, March 24, 2007, at the age of 91. Funeral services, with Burtis White and Ed Wright officiating, will be at 10:00 am on Tuesday, March 27 at The Hamil Family Funeral Home, 6449 Buffalo Gap Road. Burial will follow in Elmwood Memorial Park.
Mildred was born the daughter of Mark Amos Patterson and Lillie (Davis) Patterson on March 20, 1916 in Crews, Texas. She graduated from Lawn High School. In Abilene, on July 7, 1934, Mildred married C.E. "Hoot" Wright. The couple had three children. She was a homemaker and a kind and loving wife, mother, grandmother, sister and friend. Mildred was a member of Southwest Park Christian Church in Abilene.
Preceding her in death were her parents, her husband, C.E. Wright in 1991, two brothers and two sisters. Mildred is survived by one son, Ed Wright and his wife Johnnie Sue of Lawn; two daughters, Betty Files and her husband Jerry of Abilene, Charlotte Tutt and her husband Jim also of Abilene; one brother, Harris Patterson of Farmers Branch, Texas; seven grandchildren, Barbara Berryman, Glenda Balderas, Cleve Tutt, Kevin Tutt, Cristi Doty, JoDee Rideout and Jordan Wright; ten great-grandchildren and four great-great-grandchildren. She is also survived by numerous nieces and nephews.
Cleve Tutt, Kevin Tutt, Jordan Wright, Frank Berryman, Tim Doty and Craig Rideout will serve as pallbearers.
Memorial donations may be made in honor of Mildred Wright to Hendrick Hospice Care, 1682 Hickory Street, Abilene, Texas 79601, or to the donor's favorite charity.


text:
Kimber Williams
Upon earning her J.D. from the University of San Diego in 2008, Kimber held several positions that led to her passion for helping others fulfill their dream career in the legal world. A highly successful legal recruiter for top 100 law firms around the world, Kimber loves telling "people stories" and helping others write their next chapter. A fifth generation country girl at heart, Kimber expanded her vision in 2021 with the purchase of a 5-acre parcel of land in San Diego County, combining her love for land and animals. A bit of a diamond-in-the-rough, the property nevertheless fit her long-time vision perfectly — she had "named"
it seven years earlier (Robin is her middle name), always persisting toward the dream. She and the family now rescue farm animals in need; each addition brings a new and important story to light. Most recently, Robin's Nest is developing a fleet of vintage trailers, providing a haven for visitors near and far. Here, guests learn and participate in the farm experience, contributing a steady stream of yet more installments to the story. Kimber loves volleyball and riding her buckskin Quarter Horse, Tivio.
Sue Williams
"Dr. Sue" earned her title as an accomplished and sought-after professor at Kansas State University where she taught sociology and criminology for 25 years. She published more than 50 articles and books and has been recognized with numerous awards, including National Faculty Teacher of the Year (American Society of Criminology) and Excellence in Law Enforcement Research (International Association of Police Chiefs). Dr. Sue has directed funded projects totaling more than $2.5 million, much of which involved working inside prisons. Most recently, she served as Principal Investigator for an award-winning project titled Our Town Our Kids. It may be no surprise, then, that Dr. Sue (Kimber's mom) is dedicated to education about connections, including the human-animal bond. She recently retired and is intimately involved in the workings of Robin's Nest. Next steps include "Dr. Sue's Book Nook," a collection for Robin's Nest guests, and writing children's books, based on the lives, lessons, and antics of our three original rescues, Lily, Alberto, and Julio - also known as the "Three Chimigos."
Nicholas Spear
Nicholas Spear joined the Robin's Nest family in late 2021, together with sons Xavier (6) and Apollo (3). Nick hails from Happy, Texas and served seven years in the U.S. Navy as a Corpsman. Navy Corpsmen specialize in medical care for military personnel, including administering aid in combat and humanitarian situations. He was embedded with Marine units (1st Light Armor Reconnaissance Battalion) during three tours in the Middle East and was awarded the Bronze Star, marking a heroic and meritorious deed performed in armed conflict. Nick shares a strong passion for helping those in need. After earning a B.A. in Cultural Anthropology and Master's in Physician Assistant's Studies, Nick is licensed with the American Academy of Physician Associates, an organization for clinicians who are dedicated to expanding access to care and transferring health and wellness through patient-centered, team-based medical practice. Currently, he is a P.A. practitioner and manager of Palomar Urgent Care in Poway, CA. In his spare time, he enjoys off-roading in his Jeep and restoring classic cars.


text:
Posted 24th Sep 2018
Australian shooter Beryl Friday joins exciting Blue & Gold squad for 2018 British Fast5 All-Stars Championship
It may be Monday but Team Bath Netball have a "Friday" in the squad today announced for the 2018 British Fast5 Netball All-Stars Championship, taking place from 1-6pm on October 13 at London's Copper Box Arena.
Twice an ANZ title winner with Queensland Firebirds, Australian shooter Beryl Friday has joined an exciting Blue and Gold squad featuring a mix of new and familiar names for the event in which they were runners-up a year ago.
Imogen Allison and Chartie Curtis, both studying at the University of Bath and who have played for England age-group sides this year, will team up with Mia Ritchie and Rachel Shaw in the mid-court.
Laura Rudland and Sophie Drakeford-Lewis will join Friday and Chelsea Lewis in attack, while Wales international Leila Thomas features in defence alongside All-Star pick Stacey Francis. Commonwealth Games champion Eboni Beckford Chambers will be absent as she is getting married around the time of the event.
Team Bath Netball Head Coach Jess Thirlby said: "We had fantastic fun at this event last year as well as reaching the final. It's a great opportunity to play in a significant arena in front of what we hope will be a big crowd and, unusually for netball, for prize money.
"We are looking forward to this early opportunity to take to the court and show what we can do as part of the pre-season which will culminate on December 15th with our own Tri-Tournament in the Team Bath Arena".
Team Bath earlier announced the return of world-class defender Francis, who has just completed her second season with Australian Suncorp Super Netball finalists West Coast Fever, for the Fast5 event.
Francis said: "Playing for Team Bath is like coming home for me. To have the opportunity to rejoin the Team Bath Netball environment and put on the Blue and Gold dress again, even if only for a day, was one I couldn't have missed! I'm looking forward to playing under some of the best coaches I've ever worked with again and alongside some of my greatest friends."
Featuring 12-minute matches, an all-star 5-point line and a Golden Buzzer Power Play, the British Fast5 Netball All-Stars Championship is an all-action afternoon of non-stop, pulsating netball as the top eight teams from the 2018 Netball Superleague battle it out to be crowned 2018 All-Star Champions.
Tickets for the 2018 British Fast5 Netball All-Stars Championship will be available via www.fast5allstars.co.uk with tickets priced at £20, £30 and £40 with courtside hospitality tickets available at £99. Under 18s receive 50% off tickets, excluding courtside hospitality. Family and group discounts will be available.
Team Bath Netball are sponsored by Sitec and supported by partners Mogers Drewett, Soldi and Netball South West. Centurion Chartered Financial Planners are supporting the team's performance analysis and people development capabilities, Viper 10 are their Sportswear Supplier and Skins provide the team with compression wear.
Team Bath Netball squad for 2018 British Fast5 Netball All-Stars Championship: Imogen Allison, Chartie Curtis, Sophie Drakeford-Lewis, Stacey Francis, Beryl Friday, Chelsea Lewis, Mia Ritchie, Laura Rudland, Rachel Shaw, Leila Thomas.


Jeffery R. Fillion, Sr., 59 of Ladysmith died Friday, March 15, in Eau Claire. He is survived by 3 children, Jeffery R. Fillion Jr. of Oregon, WI., Jennifer M. Fillion of Waunakee and Joshua K. Fillion of Evansville, WI. 2 Grandchildren, 3 sisters, Nelva J. King of Wisconsin Dells, Wallis L. Roberts of Fitchburg, WI., and Grace M. Brockman of Arena, WI.
A memorial service for Jeffery R. Fillion, Sr. will be held on Saturday, March 30, at 2 PM at the Nash-Jackan Funeral Home in Ladysmith with Rev. David Smith officiating. Burial will be in Riverside Cemetery. An hour of memorial visitation will be held on Saturday at the funeral home from 1 PM until the time of the service.


Referrals must precede the sale. Referrals sent in after a vehicle has already been purchased will not be accepted.
Payment for referrals with missing or incorrect information may be delayed.
Referrals must be submitted through this website (we will not pay out verbal referrals).
You cannot refer yourself (this includes if you are a co-buyer).
Only one referral will be accepted per sale.


text:
kulkkubelle goes wild, chokes on hypocrisy.
sweetie9 wrote:
Crawl back under your rock.
Oh my God, the guy has been exonerated...I just hope if one of your family members is falsely accused and convicted of something that whiners on the other side of the world don't call them a " killer"
Quotekulkkulbelle (426 ) 4:19 pm, Thu 27 Oct #22
Deb Coates is morally outraged that someone should object to one of the 'Memphsis 3' being allowed into New Zealand. Fair enough on the surface. But isn't Kulkkulbelle, the previously banned ' Balisal' who renamed herself after a Kulkul bell as found in Balinese Temples. Why yes she is, and perhaps suffering from ringing in her ears that prevents her from recalling that she is a hate-site supporter that went a step further than any other hate-site supporter in New Zealand when she revealed having a copy of the autopsy report of one of the Bain victims which, according to kooky, proved that the victim had never been pregnant and their for gave lie to claims by the defence and its witnesses. Astoundingly enough, she was the only person who had such a report - even the pathologist himself didn't have it. But she is going to produce it, yes indeed, it's been coming on a slow boat from China for over 3 years now - trust her it is!
She, the wholesome soul, was also going to bankroll the defamation charges defences of Parker and Purkiss. The cheque is in the mail. Yes it is, kooky said it, so it must be - even ringing in one ears couldn't prevent that from being another truth from the veritable, holier than thou matriarch of TM, the self-appointed annoiter of all things good and fair.
But hold on, is claiming to have something which you never produce but use at length in your efforts to persecute somebody who has been 'exonerated' from a crime, found blameless - persecution? Why yes it is. And in order to appear 'enlightened' about another case of which a prominent nzer has taken an interest she defies anybody to object against the rights of somebody 'falsely accused and convicted.' But she did that herself, silly sausage - all that ringing in her ears must be upsetting her recall. Yes she did it herself and is unable to note that the Memphis 3 remain convicted in part for the authorities to avoid paying them out compensation. Compensation, yes that's right. Old Kooky is an expert on compensation as well, a signatory against compensation of somebody she knows is guilty despite them being found innocent by a jury in record time. Found innocent and therefore falsely imprisoned to that point, which is something else she knows is wrong because she of course has a pathologists report that will be arriving some time soon.
So what do you call somebody who lies in order to influence public opinion against an innocent man? I think you call them a persecutor. And why does somebody lie in order to have themselves believed, it is because they hate themselves, jealousy, an opportunity to play God over the life of a free man? You decide.
Which brings another question. Why does the spiritually cleansed bell person call out to those they imagine wicked in someway, for doing exactly what the cleansed person themselves have done and do in the few lucid moments when the bells subside and before their anger consumes them again. I believe they call out and point and mock, throw proverbial stones at that which they know is evil inside themselves.
Peter Jackson, like Joe Karam, Pat Booth, Jim Sprott and Chris Birt is motivated by defeating injustice he witnesses and which he is unable to turn away from. Though kookybell might applaud him she cannot hide that she is the instrument of injustice and the very example of what these good men find devastates them, deliberate, liberal, misuse of the truth and deceit.
One good thing that kooky unwittingly underlines is the mediocrity of desire for the truth of those such as kooky and her twisted sister buddies. Peter is not maligned in any meaningful way for a case of injustice he champions and which generally there is not a lot understood about by the average nzer, whereas another case many didn't understand, apart from sensationalised headlines and mistruths by kooky and her cohorts, both the falsely imprisoned and his champion for the truth have on dark days been maligned and persecuted to a far greater depth that the trivial comments queen kooky finds offensive.
Posted by Nostalgia-NZ at 5:28 PM 3 comments:
Labels: The twisted sisters
The hate-sites: the end is nigh.
After over two years since cyber-attacks, stalking and harassment was commenced on line by Annette Curran (aka golfergold) of Kapiti Coast and Glenda OBrien (aka kalnovitch, laddiefatcat) of Dunedin and others such as Christine Williams (aka msspw, millie) dustproof and nina-s they are all but routed. While none of these people have been yet brought to Court, the files against their on-line activities and law-breaking are complete and formulated into a cognitive package that might yet be used against them or other parties for a variety of issues.
Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss who jumped on the bandwagon, with those mentioned above and others, are now crippled in a legal battle of which they have no prospect of winning. Parker has made a damning admission against himself in sworn papers that's likely to have done as much harm to him as anything else that could have been brought against him to prove his role as a publisher and defamer, and more succinctly as a hate-siter and sicko. All of this is contained in the recent Judgement which he at first admitted was a defeat, and over time (how predictable) preached of how it was an 'opportunity' to try the Bain case again. Oh well, in kent's case once an idiot always an idiot. Each morning when he and Vic wake they will have the prospect of their own ruin churning in their stomachs, ruin that they sought to set upon others - free men and women alike with the right to live peacefully in this land without the attentions of a rabid mob. If you read this Kent, remember your snickering comments about my family and understand at least now the strength that grew in me when your cast your sick eyes and attention over my wife and children.
Changes have at last occurred in cyber-space here in New Zealand. The biggest site Trade Me now specifies that users must not harass or defame others on their boards. While it remains to be seen if live publishing online can ultimately be contained as lawful, I recognise the effort made to ensure that the risks are actively reduced - a substantial step in the right direction. All things have a starting point and one was obviously my letter to TM almost 2 years ago pointing out that their site was being populated by waves of hate-siters whose tools were lying, defamation and threats. If TM had been less like a slow maneuvering vessel they would have most likely avoided the litigation that was commenced against them about 6 months later and which continues on - probably inevitably to some sort of settlement between them and the plaintiff Joe Karam.
There has been an increased appreciation that online publishing isn't by any stretch of the imagination 'a chat in the pub.' Also, there is a sharp awareness between all online publishers that there protocols are recognised as being no different from the print media and with the same restraints. There is recognition by precedent before the Courts that nzers can be harassed on line and can take that to the Courts for relief without apparent need for massive law changes, but rather simply the Judicial appreciation that the written word, whether on a computer screen on a published newspaper, is not diminished one from the other - but that they, and their impact is one and the same, screen or printed page.
Perhaps also there grows an awareness of the social change that cyberspace first brought which seemed to have no limits or boundaries to the recognition that there were always limits and boundaries, and that people would invariably learn that a hot pool discovered on a trip into the bush in Rotorua didn't need to have a sign, erected by the Council, to warn of the dangers. Because the dangers were clear and present to anyone of experience and common sense. Also the fears that the anxious online users held that they might be restrained by not being able to 'speak their minds' or engage in snooping and prying into the lives of others, by some measure of insanity or social deviance, they thought they 'owned' because of a superior position they felt to hold over others not 'as good as them,' or deficient in some compared to the 'elite' defamers and stalkers. And for the more socially well-adjusted, the opportunity to see some measure of decorum and restraint arrive on message boards that might be expected by a mature and civilised society looking to progress itself with new social mediums.
I chose the title above for the obvious reasons that Parker, Purkiss, Curran and others hate-site owners have fallen over into redundancy to become an odd fixture in the recent past. A past where individuals that might otherwise have been socially moderate became monsters to an all consuming hate, sated by a false power they felt was their 'destiny' or 'right' to interfere mercilessly into the lives of not only those they considered their enemies but also the families, children and friends of those as well. The first individual, in this now expiring saga, was Annette Curran, quickly to be joined by Glenda OBrien, nina_s and others. I additionally chose the title because these hateful people and their campaigns inadvertently gave something good to nzers. They gave the opportunity for nzers to learn and see that there is a way out from being stalked and harassed in cyberspace and that the Courts can help them. This could now be seen as a blue print in the future for those that might choose cyber-space to bully, threaten or commence hate-campaigns to be stopped quickly and efficiently. I say that being mindful of the nz teenagers being bullied on line that featured on Close Up this week.
More pages yet to write and investigate on this subject, particularly the links that fed and used the hate-sites that now lie expired, but an interim report on substantial progress for the benefit of the majority.
Posted by Nostalgia-NZ at 9:56 AM 8 comments:
Labels: Hate-sites burning
Aaron Fordon recaptured, no need to breathe a sigh of relief.
George Wilder escaped, went over the wall more than once and hid in the bush for Howard Morrison to sing about a wild colonial boy. So too, Dean Wickliffe, the kid who ran the railway lines to find his life, twice broke free of the Paremoremo prison from where no one had escaped before to patch together an unsettled life.
So for the escapers all 3 a salute, for showing adventure into the night and risk - to find the dream of a life that might be less severe, for rebelling that impotent man, bereft of ideas, compassion or care should lock others in cages where death, hopelessnes and misery abounds. So escape ye yet for the enlightened time where cold stone no longer cushions you but love instead.
Labels: Escape me not.
Is Kent Parker giving Trade Me help that it doesn't want?
Originally Kent Parker and his since departed cohorts believed that Trade Me was about to fight their defamation battle for them. They were overjoyed with the fact such was the depth of their delusions. When it finally sunk in that Trade Me's interests were it's own and TM had no ambition to shelter members of hate-sites from their liabilities, in fact the site shed them in large numbers from it's own message boards, Parker and co began a number of initiatives for help which have ultimately led to the most recent which appears to be sausage sizzles to save the damned. An event I suspect which will be about as popular as Melanie White's graveside vigil which nobody but herself attended.
But although he doesn't realise it, and may not even realise that damage he has done to himself, it is within the Court system and the pleadings of Parker and Purkiss, that the men undeniably help Joe Karam with his case both against the errant twins of spin but also TM. The kind of help TM don't need. Parker has admitted in his pleadings the obvious, that he had editorial control over what appeared on his Website. Parker admits under oath the ability to remove offensive or defamatory material from his website so it follows recognition of the responsibility for the same of TM. Parker and TM therefore cannot deny the responsibility of the defamatory or offensive material on their own websites that they had the power to remove. Remote that it may be that TM would agree with Parker's submissions to the Court, because it is not in their interest to do so, it remains that the Court has already accepted the concessions of Parker - that he owned and controlled the website (as TM own their own message board,) that he had the power to delete material (as TM also share the power to remove material, indeed posters,) that membership was restricted (the same as TM.)
Parker has for all intents and purposes admitted that which TM seek to deny, the power of control over their own boards. I've written before that although TM have sought to indemnify themselves with a set of rules it would be unprecedented if any publisher were not held responsible for what they publish, despite who may have written, or re-published any particular material. Para [46] in the recently released Judgement of Associate Judge Sargisson says 'Materially, the first defendant (Parker) appears to accept that his acts or omissions may constitute publication. He deposes at paragraph 4 of his affidavit of 3 March 2011:
With respect to the application to strike out the first action against me, while I had the technical ability to remove other people's post there was no moral or legal right...
The Judge goes on to say that the plaintiffs (Karam's) claim of publication is not clearly untenable and that it is a question for a Jury to determine whether or not Parker was the publisher of the posts of others. Therein, is also sunk Trade Me who possibly have even less arguments against being a publisher than Parker. Good work Kent, I'm sure Joe is very happy with you for cutting to the chase and admitting the obvious. The fact that Parker chose to swear no legal or moral was in fact a defence has allowed both the Court and any prospective Jury the opportunity to judge what legal or moral right was in force that allowed Karam, or any other member of the public, to have their character and reputation measured by a bunch of misinformed misfits that belonged to a hate-site where they published defamatory material which was also published on NZ's largest message board site, Trade Me. Own goal Kenty, shot of the century by a complete moron!
While Kent and Vic Purkiss calculate how many sausages must be cooked the administrators of Trade Me lurch closer toward a settlement with Joe Karam thanks to the good work of Kent. While the owners surely ask how could it be that TM administrators were so thick to not realise that the traditions and liabilities of print media are not distinguished by words on a written page compared to script appearing on a computer screen. So we live and learn, even Kent....eventually.
All of the 18 people identified by Joe Karam in his pleadings as having defamed him, who published on both on TM and the hate-sites have spread the liability, as Parker and Purkiss have inadvertently admitted in their sworn affidavits to the Auckland High Court.
Posted by Nostalgia-NZ at 9:16 PM No comments:
Labels: Kent Parker.
McVicar, Garrett, Rodney Hide and Simon Power kicked to touch.
Well, not exactly. But their impetus that led them into Parliament on the back of the fraudulent Three Strikes legislation is exposed as irrelevant. So is revealed, that single issues that capture public fear or animosity can and do set the political landscape beyond their single point. With the 3 Strikes legislation NZ was given some ACT MPs who before their Parliamentary terms had finished would be exposed for fraudulent behaviour. Instead of being given a good law that delivered on its promise the public were sold a duck, along with that they got an MP that would need to resign and another that would have to repay misused funds that when asked of that MP, Hide, if it was good for the public that he had chosen to take his then girlfriend on an overseas publicly funded trip, responded 'that it was good for him.' Yes indeed. It was also good for David Garret whose carefully researched proposed 3 Strike Legislation, along with the backing of McVicar and the nod of Simon Power, and popularised hoardings elevated Act into power and an 'easy' ticket for Power's party to ensure they had a compliant coalition partner if things got tight on numbers.
For McVicar it must have been the realisation of the political power he craved, never realising that his decision to remain silent that the author of the legislation Garret was already on his second strike, which Hide and McVicar ruled as not necessary to tell the public, would be exactly that which came to come back to bite them on the arse. Additionally, it remains evident that most likely it led to the decision of Power to end his Parliamentary career, or perhaps he was encouraged by the impact it would be seen to have made on the credibility of the Government. Of course Power's departure was not before he repealed laws that were working and made serious attacks on the freedoms of NZers. His intention was to remove rights in favour of an all powerful state, an elite. When he finally left office he spoke about the possible need for independent inquiries into the injustices that feature in our legal system and which he said were 'deeply troubling' or something similar. Perhaps, not realising or being too arrogant to care that when he was intent on changing laws left, right and centre it was within his power, indeed his obligation as a law maker, to put right things that were 'deeply troubling' within the Justice system.
However, for the bare bones of the once lauded 3 Strikes laws we now see it as a failure, a fraudulent failure. Kim Workman has spoken out about the actual progress of the Law and quoted that anybody that believes that it is a success should speak to the Government's Chief Science Adviser, or the Ministry of Justice. The core group to which the legislation was meant to impact upon showed a little over 25% had even heard of the legislation, and none understood how it actually worked. Hello, that's a zero impact. Blinking brilliant.
But fear not, Crusher Collins, whose crusher legislation has so far failed to crush a single car, was able to 'confirm' that 'it does work, because of the comments that police and Corrections are getting from prisoners' she said. Hello again, the departments own statistics don't confirm that it works, the Chief Science Advisor, but Crusher knows that it does because anonymous people told her that it does by quoting, yes, the crims themselves who don't understand it. Well folks can be comforted by that when the Minister of Police who is down on crims, tough on them, uses anecdotal evidence apparently supplied by the most credible source of all, the crims themselves. Life must be tough for a bullshitting politician, particularly those that chose to deceive and frighten the public to ensure they're elected. But what of honesty? What of the critical need to unite and empower the people with truth? We now see truth and compassion lose to political expedience and lust for power.
Though perhaps the information that we see now as the real truth is something which can be learnt from, something proverbial about which truth shall endure, and liars who corrupt it are no better than those they lie about to condemn, steal from or influence. As this Parliament rises for the elections not less that a handful of liars have been removed, or decided to leave, before the people judge them of their honesty while the dear Minister of Police supports her case with the veracity of criminals as McVicar and Hide limp away.
Labels: Watching Rodney and Garth
Kent Parker - desperate or just a dumbo. You decide.
The latest offering from the great leader is titled:
The People vs Joe Karam.
Taken no doubt from the American use of laying prosecutions, being The People, against some named individual. Of course this would put in the mind of any reader that it was Karam facing charges rather than Parker and Purkiss and that the charges were laid on behalf on the Crown (as it is in NZ.) This, much like all the subterfuge of the truth applied by Parker, is an intention to mislead in what essentially was a representation by Parker for financial help from those he misleads or might potentially mislead.
The actual name of the case for which he seeks 'financial help' that 'requires the services of a legal defamation expert' is in fact Between, Joseph Francis Karam Plaintiff and Kent Parker First Defendant and Vic Purkiss Second Defendant. Parker goes onto say that Karam has sued 18 members of the self-claimed 'Justice for Robin Bain Group' for 'defamation on the basis that 18 members of the general public have said in online discussion boards about the Bain Case.' He goes on to describe the 18 as students, housewives, small business owners, workers, teachers, retirees, 'people like you and me.'
Of course the truth is that Karam hasn't sued 18 people as the record and pleadings show. He's sued Parker and Purkiss for allegedly defamatory things they've said about him and for publishing the allegedly defamatory comments of 16 others. Parker clearly has some aversion to the truth, or perhaps it is simply that he is so deranged that he doesn't know fact from fiction - so we'll take the Court documents, which he has patently shown by his own pleadings that he can't follow, as the undeniable truth.
But even within his lies there are other lies. The 'people like you and me' are in fact not general members of society, they are people who decided to join a hate site and embark on a campaign that included threatening behaviour, stalking and harassing members of the public for a cause that was both unlawful and not specific to them in any personal way. In short they were a bunch of nutters given the opportunity by Parker and Purkiss to give full reign to their hate and righteous indignation. Among them certainly were housewives, retirees, students and so forth but they distinguish themselves as different than the mass of the population because they were 'enlignened' by the truth and in some case 'holiness' to maraud into the lives of other nzers, many of whom had done nothing more than held a different opinion to the group or no opinion at all - in short they adopted the tactic quote made famous by American outlaw MC riders 'if you are not with us you are against us' something even adopted in American Foreign policy - but not adopted by the average nzer that Kent Parker trys to elevate his companions as.
Suddenly in his rambling or sheer cunning Parker has projected his own plight as being a person who merely had online conversations with his cohorts. Even that is a lie as the pleadings show for the 'conversations' were not private and were taken elsewhere (to TM for example) and were based on an unprovable allegation of what Karam's motives were. Of course in full flight the conversations degenerated into simple defamatory mockery based on misinformation, rumour and deliberate lies - they were kids in a lolly shop of deceit and all restraint was stripped from them by the 'power' they suddenly found that allowed them to denigrate and defame other nzers at will. It remains however, that at least at this stage, the claim is solely against Purkiss and Parker.
While Purkiss is no doubt trying to convince others to part with their money by a fraudulent representation of the truth, at the same time he is reminding (threatening) the remaining 16 (not named as defendants) of a peril which might befall them. This is Parker in full flight, using a representation of himself and others as bringing proceedings against Karam when in fact it is the opposite, then enlarging the number of defendants in order to keep some control of fear against those not named.
Enough? Not on planet Parker. Bring out the hankies. He goes onto say that this is an issue of 'freedom of political speech.' Invoking the sacrifices of generations passed. 'Our forefathers sacrificed their lives to preserve freedoms like this. Lest we forget.' How touching for morons to be able to believe that defamation is indeed 'political speech' when the only time politics has entered the question was at the time the deluded Parker claimed to going to start a political party. Similarly, what a distortion to claim our forefathers sacrificed their lives so that a bunch of sick perverts could snoop into the lives of others and spread messages of hate, the fight was actually against that in more respects than one. I don't know Parker but it disturbs me that the rotten lying prick uses the war dead as a shield in a fight he started against honesty, truth and Justice.
Yes folks Parker's ambitions (manifold that they were) included the subterfuge of hiding the truth and in doing so deny Justice. Now he whimpers for help, the same person who actively encouraged the stalking of families and children not involved in the Bain case or any other controversial matter now whimpers. In his soulful self-pity he continues using the same tools of deceit, he has no capacity to recognise the harm he has caused and intended to cause he can only cry and whinge about himself and even them without the recognition that his state of denial worsens his situation by the day.
As for the errant 16 and others that supported the 'cause' it is recognised that many of them were simply carried along by the opportunity to exert power and be 'all knowing.' Many were able to temporarily transport the hate from their lives and heap it upon others. Some simply were misguided, didn't understand and didn't know when to take a breath. Kent Parker at the helm was in full narcissistic flight, he was a crusader for good, a politician in waiting, the leader of a 'powerful' political movement that only he could harness, a musician, godlike and a fool.
Posted by Nostalgia-NZ at 12:24 PM 2 comments:
Labels: Kent Parker
Injustices by percentage?
From a correspondent:
If the odds of innocence are similar to USA then the figure of 2-5% in
NZ represents 160-400 people that may well be innocent of the crimes
they are currently incarcerated for..
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/justice-system/news/article.cfm?c_id=240&objectid=10757045
Even at the lower figure, and halved ,could be a good indication that on any day 40 nzers are being held under a Miscarriage of Justice. In this year alone there was recognition by the authorities of at least four men falsely imprisoned and since released, so around 10% of that lower divided total. At least part of the shortfall in NZ is made up of prisoners who admit crimes they haven't committed, either under pressure from gang or crime associates, or the police. Similarly, in other cases the police using 'mopping up' charges - being those that strike a deal to plead to crimes they didn't commit in order to escape heavier punishment on crimes they did commit. Probably more interesting are the formerly mentioned - those who admit crimes they haven't committed either from pressure from gang or crime associates. This being the one area of law where the adage the 'ends justify the means' is employed by both the criminals and the police to the same end at the same time. One example of this could be the Burdett case (quoting from memory here) where a man is serving life imprisonment for the rape and murder of this woman despite DNA showing the semen of Rewa, a convicted multiple rapist, having been sampled from the deceased body.
Some readers will recall when there might be unsolved very public crimes suspected of underworld figures a tactic is often employed by the police and leaked to the media that other 'heavies' are upset with all the police 'heat' and are considering taking the 'law' into their own hands so as to be able to get back to business. How much of that is true is debatable but it shows at the very least the police admitting that both 'sides' might apply, or be encouraged to apply, someone to come forward and fess up, or a stoolie to drop someone else in it so that normal routines are resumed. This is a very grey, unsavoury area of policing that is passed its used by date. It is from these exercises of 'intelligence' gathering that result in unsafe convictions on the basis of deals done between crims and police. This situation as recorded in earlier blogs here is all but too common in NZ and a frequent factor in Miscarriages of Justice in NZ.
Labels: Miscarriages of Justice.
The accquittal of Amanda Knox underlies the tragedy of the execution of Troy Davis.
Almost two weeks after the State of Georgia executed Troy Davis, Amanda Knox walks free from an Italian Court acquitted of murder for which she has been imprisoned for 4 years. The case against Knox appears to have fallen apart as the stark result of Court ordered tests on DNA evidence, some of which had been miraculously found weeks after earlier searches and which was most recently determined by the Court appointed scientists to be unreliable and unsafe in determining Knox's guilt.
On the other hand the case against Troy Davis had in part relied upon 11 witnesses 9 of whom later recanted. From what I have read some of points on appeal were rejected because he hadn't raised them earlier when he hadn't known about them. Additionally, since his conviction a law had been passed which sought to 'expediate' the appeal progress and which contained other provisions to enhance laws dealing with terrorism. None of the new laws successfully answered questions arising from witnesses later admitting that they had wrongfully identified Davis as the shooter, that another man had admitted to others that he was in fact the killer, or that some members of the Jury have said they changed their minds about his guilt.
I don't know enough of the details of the claim that another man had admitted the crime to other persons to comment about it one way or another, although certainly with a man's life at stake it was of critical importance. However, what I do know is that the 9 of 11 witnesses who recanted was significant beyond all proportion not to have added weight on the innocence of Troy Davis. Witnesses do not lightly recant, they can face prosecution for doing so - probably of more concern to them is that they can face the wrath of the Police for no longer being compliant in a set-up. Because a set-up often relies upon an accused friends to spill the beans on him or her whether they're guilty or not, and the motive never is anything more than the advantage that the witness might gain. We've had here in NZ at least one recent case where a compliant witness was actually the murderer and many others where the witnesses have been made secret payments and had charges dropped for telling the 'truth.' A 'truth' which unfortunately ultimately is used against somebody the police 'want' to have found guilty of a crime for which they have already been charged or are anticipated to be charged.
These witnesses by their nature don't easily recant. That 9 recanted in one case against Troy Davis defies comprehension that the evidence of his 'guilt' was not all but destroyed, or that it should at the very least have returned to a retrial. But the State of Georgia needed to kill Troy Davis and that might the real truth of the matter. That he died because in part of because of legislation that sought to expedite executions, also exercised provisions that the fact a condemned man was responsible for not knowing something at an earlier point in time was no reason not to kill him. That those laws, were in part much like our own surveillance laws, designed as tools in the fight against terrorism, betray that part of their real intention is to undermine checks and balances in the Prosecution of Justice in everyday law.
And where does terrorism lie when a man can have the evidence of 9 important witnesses against him disregarded for the convenience of the free State whom wishes to takes his life as an Judicial expedient. Also, what free State values so little the lives of its citizens that it designs laws that allow the 'legal' killing of not only the presumed guilty but also the presumed innocent in a single mix. If substantial ingredients of a prosecution fail, the entire prosecution fails, at the very least promotes the difference of a 'fair' trial where an earlier one is shown as corrupt, or changed in some substantial way. If a presumption of guilt is removed, only one thing remains in a free land - a presumption of innocence.
So now as Amanda Fox flys home to a land where the just days ago Troy Davis was killed, she may appreciate more than most a country or countries that do not sanction the taking of life, and which do not assume the corrupt power of an ancient Caesar to cast a thumb either up or down in a fickle decision over the life of others, countrymen or not.
Labels: Amanda Fox and Troy Davis - never to dance together.
Kent Parker - the rise and fall of a hate-siter.
Kent Parker is an interesting, if rare bird, on the NZ landscape, most particularly because of his abortive attempt to use cyber-space in a novel way, for New Zealand, - to begin hate-sites and hate campaigns. But probably the most fascinating aspect of his failed attempt is that it ought to have been obvious to him and his followers that they were bound for failure. There are a number of reasons for this.
1/That he didn't understand the medium (cyber-space) he used.
2/That he was impetuous and driven by something other than that which he claimed was motivating his campaign. In other words he was insincere and sought to take advantage of others, many of whom were sincere if but also misguided.
3/He didn't know his subject and paid no critical analysis of 'information' supplied to him.
4/He has no ability to think on his feet or change a position, he becomes angry if there is any suggestion that he might be wrong.
5/He became obsessed with Joe Karam in particular to the point where he showing a type of bizarre jealousy.
The above in more detail
1/Kent thought that defaming or stalking people on line had no possible consequence. He clearly misunderstood that despite the word 'space' cyber-space was contained by international borders and law, where words written in 'space' landed and any relay points along the way were in fact all culpable under the law. He has consistently failed to understand this and even in recent pleadings to the High Court displayed the incapacity to follow that he was a publisher no different from a publisher in print media, he claimed that he couldn't take material of his own sites without approval of members of his site. Not only has he demonstrated that he is responsible for what he has published he also failed to realise his culpability in providing a site where he and others conspired to commit crimes contravening the Crimes Act.
2/The fact that Kent's insincerity was lost on many of his followers for some time provided him the opportunity to capitalise on the sincere anxiety of his followers so that he was able to meld them to his cause - himself. He may or may not have realised that the less 'enlightened' of his followers saw Kent's willingness to 'go public,' have a website and so forth, as legitimising things which were morally wrong and in many cases illegal. It's hard to blame the weaker minded individuals that were attracted to Parker because he empowered them, encouraged them in the belief that they were the 'only' ones that saw the truth and that those that did not were 'outsiders' an enemy.
3/Because Kent didn't know his subject and accepted whatever suited the cause, and rejected what did not, he further disadvantaged those that were acting on a 'gut feeling,' what somebody told them, 'facts' that existed no where accept in their minds and the minds of those that had provided them. For example, it was almost 18 months before Kent's group finally understood that Bain had been 'strip searched' and (perhaps) the significance of that. Most people would need the information that he wasn't searched before claiming that and hanging their hats on such a 'fact.' Their campaign was riddled with misinformation and speculation heightened by 'information' leaked to them from various sources, in many ways they were pawns, and Kent in turn, was a pawn of others, but so arrogant he is he would be unable to even consider that. Put succinctly, Parker went to 'war' with no understanding of the war and instead saw what the spoils of war might offer him and paid no regard or reservation on doing the research before reaching an opinion, in fact he worked backwards - much like the police inquiry, decided who it was then 'found' the 'right' evidence and ignored contrary evidence.
4/Parker is unable to think on his feet. The times when he has made a change have most often resulted in him back-tracking to where he was originally placed, most often these have been attended by Kent re-inventing the wheel, re-convincing himself of something and expecting others to follow. The various flip-flops in his defence to the defamation charges show this, particularly his recent attempt to have the pleadings struck out with such things, as that mentioned above. that he 'couldn't' removed defamatory material without a 'consensus' of members - many of whom it is obvious have long since headed for the hills.
5/Kent's obsession with Karam is obvious and only requires the comment that it is far from Kent's proclamations about 'victims,' his attempts to become a musician, politician, court the media etc belie his true cause, himself.
All of which Kent now sees as his predicament of; 'The People vs Joe Karam.' More on that delusional 'title' later.
Posted by Nostalgia-NZ at 6:54 PM 1 comment:
Oh look, Kent Parker is begging, again.
Cut it out Kent. I know things are tough and you probably have orders for $60,000 or more against you for preliminary costs for proving to the High Court what a dickhead you are, but there's no need to beg. Man up will ya and do the arithmetic. You claim your hate-site has 600 members and you're asking them to give $10 each so that you can get a lawyer, that's after you've said that you already have a lawyer. But the truth is Kent you need to find 6,000 morons to give you $10 each to pay costs before you can employ a lawyer to defend you and Purkiss for stalking and defaming honest nzers.
Tell the truth Kent, get over yourself. People generally don't rate morons on a scale and your attempts to prove you're the biggest moron that ever got his sorry arse sued for being a dick are unlikely to encourage anyone to open their wallets, even from pity, in your futile attempt to evade the law. Toughen up Kent. You were willing to lie and distort the truth in order to harm real people, prepared to actively encourage idiots to threaten and stalk other nzers who rejected an innocent man being imprisoned by rumour and lies, and now you beg for help?
You, and the idiot Purkiss, who wrote messages on items of fruit in Coromandel stores, in order to poisen others, aren't the 'People' called nzers, you are law-breaking rejects, dangerous psychopathic idiots that chose to ride a wave that might bring you fame at the expense of truth. I didn't expect you or Purkiss to have any backbone Parker, and I was right. You are a gutless liar who now trys to extort money out of other nzers to pay for the lawbreaking of you and a few motley others. You don't have 600 members to your rotten hate-sites, you barely have 6. Not only is science, logic, forensic and common sense against you Kent but also opinion that you kicked others when you thought they were down, and now when the hens have come home to roost you beg and flounder like a gutless coward.
Toughen up for sake of your family, don't let them see you prostitute yourself when the fire you directed at others you thought were down, is returned. Grow some gonads, I hear there is some cheap potting mix on sale that could help your endeavour to become a man willing to fight when the chips are down. You chose what you thought were easy targets Parker, and now those targets dine on your cowardice and weakness. Have you no backbone at all? Tonight would be a good night to send your 'followers' after me and I will return them packaged with $10 notes stuck will coconut oil to their foreheads and garlands of flowers hiding their depleted bosom so that you will finally understand that your hate has consumed you and your dreams are ghosts.


We're witnessing what I believe is a dangerous new form of political gamesmanship being played out in Washington, one that could, if allowed to continue unchecked, truly undermine the way that our government is supposed to function.
(Article II, Section 2, ¶¶ 2-3.) Fairly straightforward, no? Well, it used to be. But not anymore.
Traditionally, Presidents have been given great deference when it comes to nominating people to serve in their cabinets, in other appointed positions, and on the courts. That isn't to say that the Senate didn't "grill" nominees, but they were almost always approved and in a reasonably timely manner. However, in the last few decades, that has begun to change. Nominations, especially judicial nominations, have been subjected to a much higher degree of scrutiny and some have even been rejected (Robert Bork, of course, being the classic example). And the nomination process has often been subject to very lengthy delay. Similarly, when it comes to cabinet and similar appointments, Presidents seem to be given less deference by the Senate than they traditionally enjoyed. I'm not sure if that was what the Founders intended when they wrote this portion of the Constitution, but the Senate does have the right to consent to an appointment, so that's the situation we have to deal with.
There are two problems that are making this situation much worse and, I think, taking it into dangerous territory that threatens the functioning of our government, especially if it becomes a precedential way of doing things. What am I talking about? Well first, it's worth noting that traditionally, opposition to a presidential appointment has been on the basis of some problem with the nominee or the nominee's positions on certain issues. And I guess that's fair. After all, the Constitution provides for Senatorial consent, so a President facing a Senate controlled by the other party must make some accommodations in the nominees presented. On the other hand, should a President of one party be compelled to appoint only members of the opposition party if the Senate is controlled by the opposition party?
Similarly, should one party be able to completely stop presidential appointments? More critically, should the minority party be able to completely stop presidential appointments? And should the minority party be completely able to stop presidential appointments when the opposition to the nominee has nothing to do with the nominee?
Which, as you've probably guessed, brings us to filibusters and recess appointments.
Before even discussing the filibuster, it's worth calling attention to a little-known provision of the Senate's rules that permits a single senator to anonymously put a "hold" on a nomination and prevent that nomination from coming to the floor for a vote. Like the filibuster, a hold is subject to a 60-vote cloture motion. It's like a secret filibuster. But query whether the intent of the advice and consent provision of the Constitution really contemplated a tool by which a single senator could anonymously derail a nomination unless a supermajority voted to end the hold. I don't think so.
In 1806, the Senate, on the advice of Aaron Burr, tried to clean up its rule book, which was thought to be needlessly complicated and redundant. One change it made was to delete something called "the previous question" motion. That was the motion senators used to end debate on whatever they were talking about and move to the next topic. Burr recommended axing it because it was hardly ever used. Senators were gentlemen. They knew when to stop talking.
That was the moment the Senate created the filibuster. But nobody knew it at the time. It would be three more decades before the first filibuster was mounted — which meant it was five decades after the ratification of the Constitution. "Far from being a matter of high principle, the filibuster appears to be nothing more than an unforeseen and unintended consequence of the elimination of the previous question motion from the rules of the Senate," Bondurant writes.
At the core of Bondurant's argument is a very simple claim: This isn't what the Founders intended. The historical record is clear on that fact. The framers debated requiring a supermajority in Congress to pass anything. But they rejected that idea.
Just think about that for a minute. One senator can put a hold on a nomination anonymously or filibuster a nomination and the senators representing just 21 of the 50 states (and only 11% of the population) can block the majority from ending the hold or filibuster. Is that what the Founding Fathers contemplated when they drafted the "advise and consent" clause? Remember, they specifically rejected proposals to require supermajorities in all but a few limited instances.
But, unfortunately, the situation is even worse that that.
Remember the part of the Constitution quoted above concerning recess appointments? The very concept of that provision was to give the President a way to fill vacancies in federal offices when the Senate refused to act. The appointment is temporary, lasting only until the end of the current session of Congress. However, in recent years, senators in the minority party have recognized the "danger" of allowing the Senate to recess, for if the Senate is in recess, then a President can get around the minority's holds and filibusters, even if only for a temporary appointment. The solution that the minority parties devised? Simple: Don't allow the Senate to recess, thus stripping the President of his constitutional authority to make recess appointments. How do you keep the Senate from recessing, even if everyone has gone home to be with their families or be with their constituents? Simple. Just have one senator show up every three days, call the empty Senate chamber to order, and then immediately adjourn for three days without conducting any real business. That way, even though the Senate isn't actually doing anything and even though only one senator is actually present, there is the fiction that the body isn't really in recess. What do you think? Did the Founding Fathers intend for a power specifically given to the President to be nullified by a parliamentary trick?
And thus Presidential appointments remain in limbo. Worse still, a federal court just ruled that several of President Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) were unconstitutional because the Senate wasn't really in recess (due to these pro forma sessions). While some on the right crow about how President Obama was "caught" or acted contrary to the Constitution, they completely ignore the political games being played to create the need for the recess appointments or the machinations undertaken to try to prohibit the recess appointments. More importantly, they also ignore the fact that the ruling casts into doubt all recess appointments made over the last hundred years or so and with them the rulings, decisions, and actions by those thus appointed. That part of the ruling isn't limited to Democratic recess appointments. By way of simple and recent example, President Bush's controversial appointment of John Bolton to be the ambassador to the United National was a recess appointment (as was the appointment by President George H.W. Bush of Alan Greenspan to the Federal Reserve Board).
Moreover, with regard to those recess appointments thrown out by the Court, it's worth noting that they were to the NLRB which cannot function without 5 members. With the 3 recess appointments nullified, not only are a year's worth of NLRB decisions nullified, by the agency reverts to a status of limbo in which it cannot function at all because Republicans have now spent literally years blocking a Democratic President from making appointments to the agency.
Which brings me to the final problem.
I've already discussed how Presidents now seem to get less deference from the Senate with their nominations. And that may be OK. But at least the opposition to a nominee has traditionally been about that nominee. Democrats (and some Republicans) thought Robert Bork's judicial views were too extreme. John Tower was rejected as Secretary of Defense because of allegations of alcoholism and womanizing (do people still use that phrase?).
[W]ithout a director, for example, the bureau can't regulate financial products from non-banks, including student loan providers, debt collectors, payday lenders and check cashers.
Without a chief, the bureau also can't regulate mortgage originators and servicers, which played a big role in the financial crisis by providing subprime mortgages to families who couldn't afford them.
This position had not been filled for one reason: The agency it heads is bad for jobs and bad for the economy. It's clear the president would rather trample our system of separation of powers than work with Republicans to move the country forward.
Earlier this year, 44 of my Senate Republican colleagues and I served notice that we will not confirm any nominee as director, regardless of party, until structural changes are made to make the bureau accountable to the American people — and more transparent.
You see? Nothing about Cordray at all. The objection is to the Bureau that Congress created in 2010. Republicans lost that debate but now they're trying to hold up the President's right to appoint a nominee, not because they object to the nominee, but because they object to the structure and purpose of the Bureau. Go back to Sen. McConnell's claim that the recess appointment has "arrogantly circumvented the American people". I'd argue that refusing to allow a vote, not because of any issue with the nominee, but because Republicans don't like the nature of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the real case of "arrogantly circumvent[ing] the American people".
President Obama appointed Cordray via recess appointment, but that appointment is now in question following the recent court decision (which only dealt with the NLRB appointments). Nevertheless, we have to put all of the pieces together to see the scenario being played out and the danger it poses for our way of governing. Republicans are abusing holds and filibusters and using ludicrous pro forma sessions to prevent the President from appointing people to fill offices, not because Republicans object to the person, but because they object to the very office in question or to another policy of the administration.
As an aside, and perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't recall Sen. Graham blocking any of President Bush's appointments waiting to learn how the administration mishandled the intelligence predating 9/11 or regarding Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction. How many lives were involved in those matters? But Graham will block the nominees for Secretary of Defense and head of the CIA because of four deaths in a terrorist attack in Benghazi? Nope. No politics on display there. Move along. But before you move along, query further whether blocking the administration from having a Secretary of Defense and CIA Director might actually endanger or weaken our defense and intelligence systems?
Seriously, though, ask yourself whether we really want a system in which a single anonymous senator or even a minority of the Senate can almost permanently block a President from appointing people to offices especially when the opposition has nothing to do with the person being nominated and when the inability to have the nomination confirmed may render a federal agency (such as the NLRB or CFPB) completely unable to function? Is our system really designed to allow a minority of senators to prevent the government from functioning? I don't think so.
And just think of the precedent that this could set. What happens when the minority decides that they will reject nominees unless the President appoints only those people that the minority wants appointed? What happens when the minority blocks appointments so long that entire agencies cease to function (the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms hasn't had a permanent director in over six years, largely because Senate Republicans have refused to consider appointments to that post because they don't like that division of the Justice Department). Can you imagine the screams we'd be hearing from Fox News is Senate Democrats, for example, refused to consider a President Romney's appointment to head the Treasury unless and until President Romney released his tax returns, or refused to consider an appointment to the Secretary for the Interior unless the Romney administration agreed to stop the Keystone XL Pipleline? We'd hear all sorts of cries about how the Senate was getting in the way of democracy and we'd hear the refrain that "elections matter".
Well, elections do matter. And right now, the minority in the Senate (where you'll recall, Republicans lost seats), is doing what they can to stymie the will of the American electorate. This is a dangerous precedent for our democracy.


text:
var Marks = {};
Marks.bookmarks        = [];
Marks.quickMarks       = {};
Marks.currentBookmarks = [];

Marks.addQuickMark = function(ch) {
  if (this.quickMarks[ch] === undefined) {
    Status.setMessage("New QuickMark \"" + ch + "\" added", 1);
    this.quickMarks[ch] = [document.URL];
  } else if (this.quickMarks[ch].indexOf(document.URL) === -1) {
    Status.setMessage("Current URL added to QuickMark \"" + ch + "\"", 1);
    this.quickMarks[ch].push(document.URL);
  } else {
    this.quickMarks[ch].splice(this.quickMarks[ch].indexOf(document.URL));
    if (this.quickMarks[ch].length === 0) {
      Status.setMessage("Quickmark \"" + ch + "\" removed", 1);
      delete this.quickMarks[ch];
    } else {
      Status.setMessage("Current URL removed from existing QuickMark \"" + ch + "\"", 1);
    }
  }
  chrome.runtime.sendMessage({action: "updateMarks", marks: this.quickMarks});
};

Marks.openQuickMark = function(ch, tabbed, repeats) {
  if (!this.quickMarks.hasOwnProperty(ch)) {
    return Status.setMessage("mark not set", 1, "error");
  }
  if (tabbed) {
    if (repeats !== 1) {
      if (this.quickMarks[ch][repeats - 1]) {
        chrome.runtime.sendMessage({action: "openLinkTab", url: this.quickMarks[ch][repeats - 1]});
      } else {
        chrome.runtime.sendMessage({action: "openLinkTab", url: this.quickMarks[ch][0]});
      }
    } else {
      for (var i = 0, l = this.quickMarks[ch].length; i < l; ++i) {
        chrome.runtime.sendMessage({action: "openLinkTab", url: this.quickMarks[ch][i]});
      }
    }
  } else {
    if (this.quickMarks[ch][repeats - 1]) {
      chrome.runtime.sendMessage({action: "openLink", url: this.quickMarks[ch][repeats - 1]});
    } else {
      chrome.runtime.sendMessage({action: "openLink", url: this.quickMarks[ch][0]});
    }
  }
};

Marks.parse = function(marks) {
  marks.forEach(function(bookmark) {
    if (bookmark.url) {
      Marks.bookmarks.push(["bookmark", bookmark.title, bookmark.url]);
    }
    if (bookmark.children) {
      Marks.parse(bookmark.children);
    }
  });
};

Marks.match = function(string, callback) {

  var regexp,
      i,
      matches = [];

  if (string.trim() === "") {
    return callback(this.bookmarks.slice(0, settings.searchlimit));
  }

  try {
    regexp = new RegExp(string, "i");
  } catch (e) {}

  for (i = 0, l = this.bookmarks.length; i < l; ++i) {
    if (regexp) {
      if (regexp.test(this.bookmarks[i].slice(1, 3).join(" "))) {
        matches.push(this.bookmarks[i]);
      }
    } else if (this.bookmarks[i][1].indexOf(string) === 0) { // Get the most relavent matches first
      matches.push(this.bookmarks[i]);
    }
    if (matches.length === settings.searchlimit) {
      break;
    }
  }

  if (matches.length < settings.searchlimit && !regexp) {
    for (i = 0, l = this.bookmarks.length; i < l; ++i) {
      if (this.bookmarks[i][1].indexOf(string) !== -1) { // Go for any match position at this point
        matches.push(this.bookmarks[i]);
      }
      if (matches.length === settings.searchlimit) {
        break;
      }
    }
  }

  callback(matches);

};

Marks.matchPath = function(path) {
  port.postMessage({action: "getBookmarkPath", path: path});
};


Cubase condenses almost three decades of Steinberg expertise into the most cutting-edge digital audio workstation anywhere. The users of our flagship DAW are among the most successful artists on the globe — from engineers recording and mixing rock albums to dance DJs, hip hop Audio editing with Cubase - Virtual instruments and effect - Find out more. Offering maximum flexibility, Cubase does not impose a certain workflow onto you, Whether you are a music industry veteran or taking your first steps in digital. Building on the same core technologies found in Steinberg's Cubase Pro advanced music production system, Cubase LE is a special compact version that .
25 Mar - 3 min - Uploaded by Nishant Tyagi If Liked It. Then Comment Plz. 11 Jan - 6 min - Uploaded by Cubase In the first video in the "How to create music in Cubase Elements" use the powerhouse beat. 16 Apr - 8 min - Uploaded by Music Production Tutorials Download a secret pack of + professional samples here: chateau-realdor.com SecretSamples.
3 Jun - 22 min - Uploaded by Jimmy Conway FREE DRUM SOUNDS - chateau-realdor.com - Cubase 7 How To Make A Beat Making. Cubase free download. many users as the most complete DAW on the market today, but also sets the benchmark for contemporary music production software. When comparing Cubase vs Magix Music Maker, the Slant community recommends Cubase for most people. In the question"What are the best DAWs?" Cubase. 5 Apr Created by Steinberg and first released in , Cubase is an advanced music software application that comes with a huge range of features. Download cubase music maker for free. Multimedia tools downloads - Steinberg Cubase Essential by Steinberg Media Technologies GmbH and many more.
29 Jan Cubase is a powerful recording studio software that includes an A/B the hassles of dealing with a DAW out of the music-making equation. 7 Mar To help you make the right choice and start producing music TODAY, I created a Logic Pro X; Pro Tools; Studio One; Ableton Live; Cubase Pro; Propellerhead .. Learn more here: Image Line FL Studio 12 Producer Edition. Cubase is a digital audio workstation developed by Steinberg for music and MIDI recording, . Cubase Audio VST + Wavelab + Waves AudioTrack was bundled in the first "Producer Pac". This version is native windows 95 code + is the. So dig deep into each music making software and make an informed decision Cubase is a full featured DAW with expanded functionality that comes.


The Alturi 30″ grill gives the ultimate in grilling performance, packed full of state of the art technology and features for your convenience. The heat zone separator makes it easy to cook a variety of food at the same time. Made from the highest quality stainless steel. Also includes a heavy-duty rotisserie kit.