doG

I said true. Why? Much of the thread here tries to compare one infinity with another. This is like dividing by zero, meaningless. For example, the set of positive integers, 1, 2, 3, .... is infinite but there is also an infinite number of infinite sets between any two integers. The makes the set of positive integers an infinite set of infinite sets of infinite sets. Obviously all infinities are not the same if any of them can contain others within themselves. Most advocates I've encountered that believe in a finite universe rely on evidence from the CMBR, a result of the theorized Big Bang. Consider though, is it possible that the Big Bang occurred in a larger infinite volume of space? If so would the CMBR simply represent the limit of our observational ability with everything beyond the event horizon lying outside of our observational limit? The OP asked if the universe "could" be infinite in volume and matter. Without supporting evidence that it can't then it would seem to be possible that it could.

I kind of like Notepad++ for code creation-ness....

I noticed immediately the dismal coverage of Congress' role. In over 400 interviews including a variety of people from the Reagan, Clinton and Bush administrations and the justice department but I could not find one interview with anyone in Congress. What did Congress know or not know? When did they know it? To what extent did they question it? To what extent did Congress represent its constituents before voting to authorize military force? Did Congress do the job it is elected to do? Did Congress do their job even half as well as PBS has? I think not, send 'em all home this election season.

A copper ball hanging from an alligator clip...

What blame shifting? It certainly hasn't been any intent of mine to shift any blame, only to point out that there are plenty of others that deserve their share of the blame. It's the election season and everyone needs to be aware of all the waffling politicians that deserve the limelight of blame as much as Bush does. Bush is gone since he's not eligible for reelection but those that are need not be reelected to any position in government.

Consider this: http://justcontinuing.blogspot.com/2006/05/who-is-at-fault.html Who's really at fault?

Bush asked for the authority to do so and they did knowing his intentions... Are you trying to say that the Senate Intelligence Committee is filtered by the administration? When they decide to investigate someone or something that they have to ask the administrations permission? Was the UKs intelligence bad because of the U.S. administration also? Was their bad information also filtered by the administration? If you really believe all of that its even more evidence of the incompetence of these congressional members and more reason they should be packing their bags with Bush.

So Congress has no culpability as an enabler because they authorized the war but didn't technically declare it? IMO, they're hands are every bit as dirty.

Have you tried an iso viewer?

How's it different? According to the U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 the power to declare war is reserved to the Congress of the U.S.. The President cannot declare war, he/she can only execute the laws passed by Congress, in this case Public Law 107-243.

We didn't? Iraq War Resolution - 107th Congress

But the power to declare war lies solely with Congress. Why do they not deserve any of the burden of accountability?

I've had a similar experience. When I was younger I thought about using tertiary instead of binary to get more data on magnetic media by using 3 states N, S and no charge. I did some experiments with an old tape drive and the concept looked promising. I looked up a patent attorney and he said he could do a patent search for around $400 so I went for it. He found that the technology had been patented by 3 guys about 4 years earlier. To this day I've never seen it used so I can only imagine they got the patent to keep others from using the technology.

Yes, it could be described as blackmail since it is their patent to do with as they please. That doesn't mean that boycotting them shouldn't be allowed though and I answered as such in your poll. Like YT pointed out earlier, its voting with your feet. It is nothing new for companies to buy and hold patents to prevent products that would benefit society as a whole but be detrimental to that company's profits. I suspect the oil companies probably own most of the patents on the most efficient carburetor designs to insure the maximum demand for their products and this hinders progress for society as a whole. This is still quite a different situation than the one with Wal-Mart so it is a strawman relative to that debate. The contract the Shanks signed with Wal-Mart...

And again I'll say that boycotting itself is not blackmail, it's the threat of blackmail, or any other consequences, that if the victim does not do what the blackmailer wants then they will suffer the consequence. That's what I'm saying is blackmail. If they are threatened with any particular action that will cost them something, their reputation or their money or anything else of value, in order to coerce an extortion of money from them that is rightfully theirs, then it is blackmail.

I sort of disagree. This is not a collection of statement claiming Saddam had WMDs, it is a collection of statements claiming Saddam was dangerous and could not be allowed to acquire WMDs. I think that's probably true and there were many people making this claim, not just Bush. What do you expect when the choices for President were dumb and dumber? We've got the same problem this time, not one true statesman in the bunch.

One is using coercion to force an unfavorable breach of contract. What's the point for them to enter such contracts at all if the public is just going to force them to surrender their contractual rights anyhow?

I said that already. The threat of boycotting in order to coerce is blackmail....

I just clicked on the link to the definition in the Oxford dictionary in my post and that definition is certainly there. All I did was add a line break to my copy and paste. Are you saying the Oxford Dictionary is wrong? Take that up with the dictionary. I didn't write it. I just used a word from it in a less known usage. It is and the act of boycotting itself isn't blackmail. Threatening a company like Wal-Mart with a boycott if they don't surrender $400,000 of their money to some individual is blackmail. There seems to be a few that want to nitpick the word I chose to describe the intent to use coercion to get Wal-Mart to drop their claim to their money.

The act of threatening someone with an action to coerce an action from them is blackmail by definition. I suppose simply boycotting someone without first threatening to do so would not technically be blackmail. See also:

None of that has anything to do with the case we've been discussing. They not acquired and good or bad image because of this case and threatening them with boycotts for not surrendering their own rights is wrong. You want more accountability? Get it from the ambulance chasing personal injury attorney that should have known what he was doing when he negotiated the settlement, not the big bad evil rich guy that wants nothing more than to enjoy his rights the same as you. What exactly are they on the hook for in the first place? Standing up for their rights? Is that somehow unAmerican? Wal-Mart didn't do anything wrong so why should they be accountable?

It's the attorney's job to protect the interests of the client. The attorney should have been aware of the routine clause in the policy from Wal-Mart and should have covered that in the settlement so that his/her client would not be open to further litigation against the very settlement they negotiated. This attorney did not cover the clients vulnerability to further liability and the victim here should really see another attorney about it. She might find herself entitled to a good piece of what that attorney took for himself. Perhaps someone over at the FindLaw Boards could provide more detail.

Using a boycott to tarnish their public image and to cause them to lose business is not taking something from them? Threatening to do so if they won't give up what is rightfully theirs is not blackmail?

It's blackmail and blackmail is wrong even if its done for the right reason. Blackmail does not make the victim noble either. Wal-Mart is not at fault, her attorney is. Wal-Mart has done nothing to be ashamed of, her attorney has.

You're still pointing your finger at the wrong bad guy. Wal-Mart did nothing but sign a contract and attempt to enforce it. Their contract contains a routine clause used in the insurance industry about litigation. Wal-Mart's attorneys did their job when they wrote the contract. OTOH, I do not think the insured's attorney can claim that he acted in his own clients best interest. It looks pretty obvious that his own interest had priority. Attempting to punish Wal-Mart for this will do nothing to effect future similar cases.