Which makes them even less of an authority.

As a concerted effort to minimise misinformation, or as a planned effort in conjunction with bad actors, to move the misinformation elsewhere and make it look like they tried?

It says debarred. So, they will undo the barring?!

Not a majority of aupporters.

Its not that it can’t happen now. Its that it will happen all the time with digital tags.

A bit risky. They could find they become a boycott target which could kill adoption. Companies won’t want wasted stock, sonmay be risk averse to using them.

Allowing HIV to run rampant has played a separate part of making Russian life tough.

Well, Facebook, google spring to mind. They are both cheap for the consumer and undermine local competition. Digital goods can be dumped too.

If you can find the same torrent already existing, you should be able to add the torrent, paused, then copy the file to the empty folder. Force a recheck and then it should hash check the files.

Not specific to XD as I dont use it, but has worked for me when changing trackers. I havnt tried when downloading over different protocols, but it should not make a difference.

He’s already been mildly critical of trump against Harris to help play both sides. He tried controlling trump before and it didn’t work. He ended up paying billions, then when he followed trump, mwahahahah.

Their idioms have implications beyond what he’s saying. He’s either changing his story or doesn’t fully understand them.nor my point.

Given the lady doth protest so much, my money would be on retrospective shanging of the story, not clarification.

Oh, she has charisma and confidence, like trump. Its just misguided. People saw through it and SNL skits destroyed her as she appeared stupid and everything she said after that reinforced the stupidity not the folksy.

The tea party became the maga movement.

Just like in this discussion, youre changing the narrative deceptively.

Now they are on the phone. They weren’t before, that stage had passed.

Sure, you are now retroactively changing your intent but it doesn’t change the meaning of your words.

You say listen to what youre saying. I did.

If you said, when they call advise of the current rate, is agree. Your version seems to be past that stage. In no world does anyone think that you would be obliged to honor the quote. So either your advice is not really advice, to do what is normal and advise them of your actual rate. Or, as appears more likely, you want to leverage the mistake using their sunken cost of time after arranging a meet, knowing in advance their expectations dont match the rate.

If everyone else gets it why is there another comment calling you a LinkedIn lunatic? Its not a term I would use, but I see their point. Your comment is one of two things: A pointless comment offering no advice as of course they would clarify. A comment to say leverage it to your advantage, using deceptive tactics.

Walk it back all you want but in context its clear to me which was the intent. Perhaps you meant no I’ll will, but it reads as exploitative. In quoting for any kind of work, but especially programming based work, there is a knowledge differential. This justifies fees, but the same knowledge differential is often used to take advantage of those with no concept of the work involved.

What about Palin? I’m sure she gave an initial boost, but isn’t she thought to have cost the election?

Laughing Kamala and dour don.

I am listening to what you are saying. ok, so you did imply this is not the first contact. Just using a phrase to do so. Obviously you meant something different.

Walking out the door, also a phrase. Again, one that’s situational. It means they are on site. For talking on the phone, I’d say hang up. So again, implying its not the first contact.

Look, I also think it can be correctly handled, but your whole post makes it sound like a pushy sales narrative that is deceptive. Youre not outright calling for deception but the implication is there. I’m not the only one noticing it.

Maybe your choice of words is wrong, but when someone tells you who they are, listen.

How do you get them in the door to tell them without the call? Youre advising using an error to your advantage to massage someone to be a client using a bait and switch tactic.

It may not have been thenolan, being a genuine error, but that’s your plan to take advantage of it. If they purposely gave the wrong amount, would it be bait and switch in your view?

Way to go on the straw man, though.

I’m saying they should not get to the point that they walk in the door. If they call, correct immediately.

It should be corrected, by Dad, prior to a call, rather than used as a sales funnel, which is the suggestion.

Honest mistakes happen, but using an honest mistake to purposefully continue to mislead to get them in the door and then correct them is a bait and switch.

In most industries, that’s considered a bait and switch. Decpetice conduct that can lead to fines.

If you contact them immediately, to rectify an error, then not so much.