The Evil Dr. Longshadow

That's precisely what I have been trying to tell you for several pages of this thread. You just simply did not comprehend that complying with the law that was posted is NOT POSSIBLE without such categorization and is therefore required.

The casino and alcohol regulators do not concern themselves with soft drinks of any sort, coffee or otherwise. That's why coffee is listed separately from the alcohol list on the very same page as the soft drinks.

Look for it.

This is why a real discussion can't be done on these boards. I ask a legitimate question of you and your response is just more Spam.

I didn't post it. Somebody else did. All I did was point out the inevitible result.

So, you have plenty of issues with your reading comprehension. How is compliance possible without the separate lists or inventory counts? Hint: They're not magicians. If there is any other way, please enlighten me instead of holding fast to your obnoxious denials.

How is compliance possible without the separate lists or inventory counts? Hint: They're not magicians. If there is any other way, please enlighten me instead of holding fast to your obnoxious denials.

Because being in compliance with the exising law, which already HAS BEEN POSTED Here by somebody else is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE without taking the actions I have mentioned. There IS NO OTHER WAY to comply.

When complying with any specific law is just simply not possible at all without taking specific actions, then doing so is indeed required by that regulation. Now, here's the part where you're going to say that I'm "deflecting" or "changing the subject", simply because your particular failure to comprehend like for like comparisons often obstructs your ability to hold a civilized discussion: Are you required by any federal or state law to interact with the MVC or U.S. Passort Service? Just answer yes or no.

Nope.

The Spice Girls heard me telling a joke and asked me to be a comedian for their opening act. So, now I'm Old Spice.

Who made the claim that it's missing the bolt? Isn't it up to that person to prove the statement?

I know that having a job could sometimes feel that way.

Because A: it's not spam. B: When people don't like what I post, they have the option of not engaging. C: I'm in here more out of curiosity than anything else, such as trying to figure out why anybody would flat out and deliberately refuse to accept the indisputable fact that laws have an effect on behavior - that specific actions need to be taken in order to comply with a law, even when the law does not specifically spell out the actions word for word.

Where did draw the conclusion that it's a Mossberg? There are other manufacturers

You're just mad because you flubbed in qouting me. I never said it was missing the bolt.

No, it isn't. Bolt is on its right side, which is not facing the camera.

The beauty of retirement is that my schedule can be changed and reaaranged any way I see fit on random whims. So, I sleep when I'm tired and stay awake when I'm not. There's no alarm clock to answer.

Nah... just some random Walmartian who wandered onto a city street. BTW, I'm not actually going to post it here because whatever you say about it could differ from what a mod or amin might think of it.

Okay, so go out someplace and find some proof that I said the regs define coffee as a soft drink. Because, I did say that beverages either hard or soft are set in two separate columns on the inventory sheets.

What did I lie sbout on the application and how are you so sure that my lawyer and I didn't provide the documents the union had asked for? Do you really think they would approve any application without the documents?

That's because I never said the law defines coffee as a soft drink. Anyway, I'm not the person who posted the regs. All I did was mention the actions that need to be taken in order to comply.

Is photographing a person who is turned away from the camera with no part of the face or any other specific identifiers showing and then posting the photo here still "doxing" that person?

I do have insurance. It's costing me $430 per month for a private policy because my income disqualifies me from any state sponsored plan, including Medicaid. How am I "stealing" from the union when I went through the application process and was approved?