re: Advocate prints comprehensive article on St. George, the Mall of La.

Of course you are right, Mickey. It's the same exact effect (notice the correct use of "effect", GeeOH).

I'm done discussing it.

quote:

---

We'll never know

---

So you meant never as in....not really never but maybe sometime?

quote:

---

since

---

quote:

---

withdrawn

---

And

quote:

---

I later said

---

Doesn't matter.

quote:

---

You wanna discuss the new EBR investigation bombshell that now shows correption all the way to the top?

---

I don't know what "correption" means. Please explain.

No

I am not going to debate you that hold and withdrawn mean the same thing .

It's the combination of corruption and the correction of your stupidity.

But,even with your wit, the topic still remains...ebr is a joke and will further crumble go ing SG a nice boost

quote:

---

No

I am not going to debate you that hold and withdrawn mean the same thing .

---

Then don't comment on it if you can't back it up.

And just to educate everyone, "withdrawn" and "hold" aren't even legislative tools. Bills can be deferred and tabled.

Tabled means that no vote shall be taken on that motion. Deferred is, per the LA Legislature glossary: "A legislative instrument scheduled for hearing by a committee may be voluntarily deferred upon the request of the author or member handling the instrument. An instrument voluntarily deferred without objection may be rescheduled for committee hearing."

So this entire argument is totally ridiculous. In most cases, when the term "withdrawn" is used, it means deferred because the bill has not been motioned to put it to a vote yet. Deferring a bill does not automatically kill it indefinitely.

Good info. Thanks.

quote:

---

So what does it mean when someone says "we will never know"

Does it mean forever never? Forever ever? Never ever? Or just till Thursday. I'm so confused.

---

He apparently didn't know the bill was reintroduced. It didn't have to be. What's your point? That wasn't part of their 'bet' was it? It was a 'hold' vs 'withdrawn' argument.

From reading back at what Sproket said:

quote:

---

Try again. Where was the bill WITHDRAWN, like you said?

Are you honestly this stupid? You can't possibly think presenting and withdrawing are the same thing. The bill is still scheduled for tomorrow.

---

He apparently didn't understand that a bill can be taken off the docket and put back on.

I never know what he understands. He replied "Done" to the ban bet which I quoted above. After I posted the link to the article which said White put a hold on the bill just like my ban bet said, Sprocks started quoting other posts made prior to and after the bet post.

The funny part is I had already found the link to the article (which I posted) prior to my making the ban bet. I used the EXACT phrase the article's title did to make the bet. That wasn't an accident. Even as I did that I knew Sprocks would parse words to wiggle out. He is sooo predictable.