Messages

1

General Comments / Re: Cutting the Judas cradle out of the LGB flag

« on: Today at 05:07:36 AM »

Obviously nobody can possibly disprove that an omnipotent being isn't hiding himself really really well. Indeed an omnipotent being can easily create a universe that looks utterly as if it had no creator whatsoever.

Such an omnipotent being then could also easily only hide from the people who use their free will to believe in the fiction that they own their own bodies.

That'd be mean, wouldn't it?

See definition of omnipotent. Or indeed could provide false "revelations" just to jerk the puppets around because they think it would be funny. Once you posit enough omni-s in one being most discussion about them becomes moot.

2

General Comments / Re: Cutting the Judas cradle out of the LGB flag

« on: May 26, 2023, 04:51:42 AM »

I do not remember Jesus saying anything about LGBTQ other than "love your neighbor as yourself". Seems pretty clear.

You're saying that you think Jesus had no problem with homosexuality?

Unclear - see previous thread re. slavery in the bible as to what exactly a lack of condemnation might mean.

3

General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week

« on: May 25, 2023, 04:13:16 AM »

GA GOP leader is also a flat earther.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/georgia-gop-chair-goes-full-170734553.html

For real. A Flat Earther.

That surely must be a parody piece? Please...

4

General Comments / Re: Maricopa election—to be continued

« on: May 24, 2023, 04:23:55 AM »

Pete - just to be clear here - when you use the word "fraud" what exactly are you alleging? Your usage would suggest to me that you mean that some parts of the vote counting process might be unsafe, not that the votes were miscounted or that votes were added by imaginary voters which is what I normally thing of as fraud. Whilst the former helps enable the latter the two things are distinct.

5

General Comments / Re: TRIK MENANG JACKPOT JUDI ONLINE SLOT88

« on: May 23, 2023, 06:26:51 AM »

Orney has somehow become so popular that we get foreign spam?! (Have we ever had an erica on the board - I don't recall)

6

General Comments / Re: Hey, Joshua...

« on: May 21, 2023, 10:41:45 AM »

Well on the whole I don't think you are the same person. You are both having too much fun and if you were the same person I'm pretty sure that the level of fun you are having should cause you to go blind, or to be cast into some level of uttermost darkness with wailing and gnashing of teeth. :-)

7

General Comments / Re: MAGA women and their husbands

« on: May 17, 2023, 02:18:10 PM »

Its not necessarily as daft as all that depending on how you view your representative. If you have elected them to speak on your behalf with their views then, yes, it is silly. If on the other hand you have elected your representative to express your views then their personal views must be overridden by those of the electorate, and this sort of thing will happen all the time. Now most democracies operate in the former mode but the latter isn't inconceivable (and most politicians will claim that they are speaking for all the people in their electorate no matter how untrue that is).

8

General Comments / Re: E Jean Carrolls lawsuit

« on: May 16, 2023, 11:49:43 AM »

Hurrah!

9

General Comments / Re: Question for progressives

« on: May 16, 2023, 11:41:42 AM »

You could also characterise Trumps twitter cutoff as being "shortly after he ceased being POTUS".

Only if you spoke falsely. Homeland-controlled pre-Elon telwutter cut Trump off while he was still POTUS. And while he was trying to defuse the situation, more people were getting killed.

My bad - failed to get when everything happens in the right order.

10

General Comments / Re: Question for progressives

« on: May 16, 2023, 05:54:49 AM »

You could also characterise Trumps twitter cutoff as being "shortly after he ceased being POTUS".

11

General Comments / Re: E Jean Carrolls lawsuit

« on: May 16, 2023, 05:48:23 AM »

Not to be that guy, jc44, but Google is your friend. Literally, next time you have a question like that, just type into Google your question. Anytime I have a question I immediately go to Google, for better or worse. It usually works out.  Anyway, here are the results -

"DARVO stands for "Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender." The perpetrator or offender may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim -- or the whistle blower -- into an alleged offender. This occurs, for instance, when an actually guilty perpetrator assumes the role of "falsely accused" and attacks the accuser's credibility and blames the accuser of being the perpetrator of a false accusation."

Thanks for the info. Yes I could have looked it up but I really didn't feel the need to put in any effort to find out how exactly I was being insulted. Had it been part of something that looked like rational argument I would have tried.

12

General Comments / Re: E Jean Carrolls lawsuit

« on: May 14, 2023, 06:47:53 AM »

You characterized what I said like this:
“but I do find it hard to cope with the position that whenever Trump is accused of anything that it cannot be because he has actually done that thing.”

Your only basis for doing that was that somebody came up with an alternate explanation that was reasonable.

So turning that on me seems like DARVO.

I didn't actually say that but I can understand why you might think that - sorry. It does seem to me that there are a set of people out there for whom that is true but I did not mean to necessarily include you in that set. I was musing somewhat on the topic.

No idea what DARVO means so that comment is lost on me - my guess is that it is insulting.

13

General Comments / Re: Britain's new AI super spy traffic cams

« on: May 14, 2023, 05:14:41 AM »

Well I can, at least, reply to my personal perception of the effectiveness of speed cameras in the UK having lived through their introduction maybe 30 years ago to the present day when they are pretty much ubiquitous. I can't give stats for accidents and even if I could there are lot lot of variables that muddy the argument. On initial introduction people vandalised them and would slow down (sometimes violently) when they saw one (by law they are painted a highly visible yellow). These days they are just a fact of life - speed limits are much more commonly observed, most motorways run at a steady 68mph (a bit below the limit of 70) in all lanes assuming they aren't slowed by lorry racing or other traffic conditions. Previously you would definitely get a slow lane at ~50 and the odd maniac trying to do 140+. So in terms of regulating speed - yes - after a while they will do that. Worth noting we have a lot of average speed cameras these day which measure time taken over a long stretch - maybe miles - which cuts down on braking hard of the camera and allows occasional speeding to overtake etc.

14

General Comments / Re: E Jean Carrolls lawsuit

« on: May 14, 2023, 04:47:22 AM »

I started out thinking you were discussing in good faith, but that last grotesque misconstuction makes clear that your whole object is to reduce me and anyone that disagrees with you to a caricature.

Really no - on the whole I feel that it is you who is doing that to me now.

You’ve just said that anyone who has suspicions about this rape trial would defend Trump on any accusation at all. My response is there anybody that would use this trial as a touchstone of decency is either brainwashed or malicious. If you don’t think this trial leaves room to doubt, then I have no doubts about your villainy. 👋

I didn't say that. The discussion we have been having hasn't in fact been about the trial - it has been about the creation of the law that enabled the trial.

Sure the trial leaves room for doubt - as does any trial. The incident happened a long time ago, memory can (and does) play tricks on one. Proved beyond doubt - no.  Balance of evidence - yes.

15

General Comments / Re: E Jean Carrolls lawsuit

« on: May 13, 2023, 02:25:15 PM »

Remind me - what was your evidence? You brought up timing and scope - was there anything else?
I obviously cannot prove a lack of conspiracy as it is all but impossible to prove a negative - all that can be done is show that there are other reasonable,  explanations and I feel that has been achieved.

I agree that there are other reasonable explanations. But I think it’s cowardly for you to abuse the word conspiracy, to pretend that my explanation is any less reasonable. There’s nothing secret about Progressive treating Trump, like he was some species of antichrist that needs to be stopped at all costs. 

I am not asking you anything more than to recognize why many see this lawsuit as illegitimate, and don’t think any less of Trump because of it. I’m not asking you to change your position. Just to humanize those who don’t share it. Is that too much of a scary mental exercise for you?

Believe it or not I started off this discussion thinking you had at least half a point or at the very least a defensible position re. the legislation (less so re. the trial). Additional evidence was presented that you have not disputed that caused me to come down firmly on the side of the law being, at most, only tangentially related to "getting Trump".

I do believe that you are human - I hadn't really considered that you might be ChartGPT - but I do find it hard to cope with the position that whenever Trump is accused of anything that it cannot be because he has actually done that thing.

But I do think that in the "Pound on the Facts, Pound on the Law, Pound on the Table" progression we've reached the "Pound on the Table" phase.

16

General Comments / Re: The problem with bail and unequal justice

« on: May 13, 2023, 01:58:11 PM »

Returning briefly to Tom's question - you believe that the the ordinary threat of additional prosecution was inadequate and imposition of cash bail was required in these cases to get the accused to turn up in court and otherwise they would have simply attempted to vanish?

And/or

You don’t need both, silly.

OK - bear with me here - I don't understand the US system (I'm not sure I understand the UK system for this sort of thing either) - are you saying that if you don't turn up to court "all" that happens is you lose your bail money (which is what you seem to be implying)? I was assuming that you lost your money and you ended up being charged with some sort of "fleeing justice" offence.

Yes. In that sentence, the AND is appropriate. You lose your bail, and they write out an arrest warrant for you. And if you use the bail bondsman, then the bondsman hast to produce you, or loses a whole bunch of money.

OK - then I'm confused by your "And/or. You don’t need both, silly." - I'll grant I mistyped by original question due to rewriting it a couple of times but I thought it was still parseable. I'll restate:

Returning briefly to Tom's question - In these cases (the prostitution ones) do you believe that the threat of additional prosecution was inadequate and therefore the imposition of cash bail was required to get the accused to turn up in court as otherwise they would have simply attempted to vanish?

Given that the threat of additional prosecution already exists does you previous "And/or. You don’t need both, silly." still apply and if so could you expand for the hard of thinking please?

17

General Comments / Re: E Jean Carrolls lawsuit

« on: May 13, 2023, 10:51:20 AM »

Of course they take it seriously - it is part of their traditional values :-)

18

General Comments / Re: E Jean Carrolls lawsuit

« on: May 13, 2023, 10:06:34 AM »

Cherry - your argument appears to be - the left don't/didn't like Trump (fair - I have to give you that), Trump is/was well known for harassing women (you didn't say this but I think it is needed for the rest of your argument to hold together), so #metoo was invented to get at Trump?

19

General Comments / Re: E Jean Carrolls lawsuit

« on: May 13, 2023, 08:27:46 AM »

Remind me - what was your evidence? You brought up timing and scope - was there anything else?
I obviously cannot prove a lack of conspiracy as it is all but impossible to prove a negative - all that can be done is show that there are other reasonable,  explanations and I feel that has been achieved.

20

General Comments / Re: The problem with bail and unequal justice

« on: May 13, 2023, 08:19:05 AM »

Returning briefly to Tom's question - you believe that the the ordinary threat of additional prosecution was inadequate and imposition of cash bail was required in these cases to get the accused to turn up in court and otherwise they would have simply attempted to vanish?

And/or

You don’t need both, silly.

OK - bear with me here - I don't understand the US system (I'm not sure I understand the UK system for this sort of thing either) - are you saying that if you don't turn up to court "all" that happens is you lose your bail money (which is what you seem to be implying)? I was assuming that you lost your money and you ended up being charged with some sort of "fleeing justice" offence.

21

General Comments / Re: The problem with bail and unequal justice

« on: May 13, 2023, 04:24:12 AM »

Returning briefly to Tom's question - you believe that the the ordinary threat of additional prosecution was inadequate and imposition of cash bail was required in these cases to get the accused to turn up in court and otherwise they would have simply attempted to vanish?

22

General Comments / Re: E Jean Carrolls lawsuit

« on: May 13, 2023, 04:16:11 AM »

But going back to Pete's suggestion that the timing and scope of the bill was suspicious. I think these points now have reasonable explanations in this thread.

timing: (TheDrake on: May 11, 2023, 09:27:56 AM) New legislatures like to do stuff immediately and have had time to prep what they are going to do.

scope: (scifibum on: May 11, 2023, 09:17:51 PM) Part of a larger move to extend the statutory period for this class of civil suit

I've not seen any rebuttals to either of these and they seem compelling to me. That leaves us with motivation:

Given the general #metoo movement the extended statutory period seems in line with (at least some) public opinion, so doesn't need anything additional. I'll happily believe that there were a number of people who hoped and maybe even expected that Trump would get caught in the net but I don't see that a desire to get at Trump is in any way required for these laws to be passed as they are when they did.

Does that seem fair?

23

General Comments / Re: E Jean Carrolls lawsuit

« on: May 12, 2023, 02:00:09 PM »

The fact that no one specifically said something to you or to me doesn't mean it wasn't in the open.

Are you suggesting that if a bunch of people openly said, to the public, "Let's get this bill passed so we can hurt Donald Trump," no one in the media would have reported on that?

No. I'm saying that if anyone in the media had reported on that, Google probably would have made it disappear.  So we're all crippled without L-N accounts.

I'm afraid that the requirements for that grade of global-conspiracy make it implausible to me. You are entitled to you views and you may be right of course, and the British royal family may indeed eat babies in secret tunnels under Westminster to retain eternal youth but I don't think so.

24

General Comments / Re: The problem with bail and unequal justice

« on: May 12, 2023, 01:47:40 PM »

There is obviously a problem in that the severity of the financial consequence is trivial for some and impossible to raise for others. A millionaire has no additional incentive to show up for their $5000 bond.

Absurd. A millionaire has property that the government can seize. A millionaire has business that would be discredited by a standing arrest warrant that the judge would issue in normal states.  Drake can't point to millionaires paying their bail & not showing to court.  I caught him on this falsehood before, and here he is repeating it again.

So if I follow that argument correctly only poor people skip bail and/or offend during the bail period so they should be locked up without bail but rich people can be let run free without the need to pay bail?

No. If the restaurant shooter was a multimillionaire, then there would be a chance of him skipping bail, so the bail should be raised.

That isn't exactly the argument you advanced previously ("Absurd") and if you had suggested that bail should be based on some % of total/usable wealth then that would nullify many of the points raised on this thread.

Pay attention to context & stop moving the goalposts. "Absurd" responded to the idiotic claim that a multimillionaire out on $5000 bail had no incentive to show up to trial.  For a minor charge with a mere 5k bail, the arrest warrant on top of the bail would probably suffice.  For a murder/Attempt murder charge, where the millionaire actually might have net incentive to flee, obviously wealth would need to be considered to balance that out.

I didn't move the goalposts and there was no mention of the proposed charge at the time you called it absurd.  This is the first point in the discussion where the $5000 bail was "obviously" for a misdemeanour.

25

General Comments / Re: The problem with bail and unequal justice

« on: May 12, 2023, 01:32:01 PM »

There is obviously a problem in that the severity of the financial consequence is trivial for some and impossible to raise for others. A millionaire has no additional incentive to show up for their $5000 bond.

Absurd. A millionaire has property that the government can seize. A millionaire has business that would be discredited by a standing arrest warrant that the judge would issue in normal states.  Drake can't point to millionaires paying their bail & not showing to court.  I caught him on this falsehood before, and here he is repeating it again.

So if I follow that argument correctly only poor people skip bail and/or offend during the bail period so they should be locked up without bail but rich people can be let run free without the need to pay bail?

No. If the restaurant shooter was a multimillionaire, then there would be a chance of him skipping bail, so the bail should be raised.

That isn't exactly the argument you advanced previously ("Absurd") and if you had suggested that bail should be based on some % of total/usable wealth then that would nullify many of the points raised on this thread.

26

General Comments / Re: E Jean Carrolls lawsuit

« on: May 12, 2023, 01:19:29 PM »

Then tell me why the law expires? Who changes civil procedure for lawsuits, but only leaves a 12 month window to do it in?

No one honest, that’s who.

scifibums post (this thread May 11, 2023, 09:17:51 PM) seems to address this point, at least to my satisfaction.

27

General Comments / Re: The problem with bail and unequal justice

« on: May 12, 2023, 12:09:24 PM »

There is obviously a problem in that the severity of the financial consequence is trivial for some and impossible to raise for others. A millionaire has no additional incentive to show up for their $5000 bond.

Absurd. A millionaire has property that the government can seize. A millionaire has business that would be discredited by a standing arrest warrant that the judge would issue in normal states.  Drake can't point to millionaires paying their bail & not showing to court.  I caught him on this falsehood before, and here he is repeating it again.

So if I follow that argument correctly only poor people skip bail and/or offend during the bail period so they should be locked up without bail but rich people can be let run free without the need to pay bail?

28

General Comments / Re: E Jean Carrolls lawsuit

« on: May 11, 2023, 04:34:04 AM »

“ OK - I'm going to have to give you that the timing is almost certainly politically motivated. Hmmm... politicians doing politically motivated things who'd have thought that.”

Politicians managing one specific lawsuit from before it was filed—that’s a new level of dirty.

That isn't what I said.

I will absolutely give you that it looks like the timing of the NY law was passing was related to Trumps ceasing to be president. I'm not sure of the exact reasoning behind that though - could he somehow have got rid of the law if he was still president?

And I will certainly entertain the belief that they hoped that one of the many women who had talked about Trumps dodgy behaviour previously would find the courage to file a lawsuit against him, as well as many others who had historic grievances against other people that now wished redress.

However you have in no way proven a conspiracy whereby the entire purpose of the law was to achieve the chain of events that has occurred. Given the general #metoo climate it could as easily have been a reaction to that.

It means this whole farce was a show-trial not operating by the normal rules of law

No. Trump did bad thing, Trump was convicted of doing bad thing in front of a jury with evidence given etc. It wasn't just a case of "Lock Him Up"!

29

General Comments / Re: E Jean Carrolls lawsuit

« on: May 10, 2023, 01:50:55 PM »

Ashley StClaire notes:

“Also super odd that Democrat & Jeffrey Epstein pal Reid Hoffman poured cash into Carroll’s lawsuit.”

And even if that is true - so what? It is impossible to pretend that there were no interested outside parties in the outcome of this trial. It can also be reasonably argued that adding cash to Carroll's side levelled the playing field (assuming that you believe that "justice" can be influenced by the amount of money you promise your lawyers) as Trump will have a bigger starting bankroll than her.

In response to your question, so what, here’s more information about the involvement of others in this case:

On January 6th, 2021, the first day Trump was no longer President, a bill was introduced in New York that would allow victims of sexual abuse to file civil suits between November 24, 2022 and November 24, 2023.

OK - I'm going to have to give you that the timing is almost certainly politically motivated. Hmmm... politicians doing politically motivated things who'd have thought that.
But whether you like it or not #metoo is a thing, there has been a rash of high profile historic abuse cases and I'm guessing that the politically motivated politicians thought they might get some votes from their base this way.

On November 24th Elizabeth Jean Carroll filed a suit against Donald Trump at the urging of Trump hater George Conway.  Her legal expenses were partly funded by democrat mega donor and billionaire Reid Hoffman.

Nothing suspicious there?

To the second part - not really. See the whole #metoo thing. Filing on the first available day isn't suspicious given about 8 months notice that the window was opening and see my previous comment re. funding.

30

General Comments / Re: E Jean Carrolls lawsuit

« on: May 10, 2023, 04:38:31 AM »

Ashley StClaire notes:

“Also super odd that Democrat & Jeffrey Epstein pal Reid Hoffman poured cash into Carroll’s lawsuit.”

And even if that is true - so what? It is impossible to pretend that there were no interested outside parties in the outcome of this trial. It can also be reasonably argued that adding cash to Carroll's side levelled the playing field (assuming that you believe that "justice" can be influenced by the amount of money you promise your lawyers) as Trump will have a bigger starting bankroll than her.

31

General Comments / Re: Stuart Parker’s “March of Grotesques”

« on: May 06, 2023, 04:27:30 AM »

Does that generally work on Cro-Magnons? It makes me feel uncomfortable. Set up red flex.

How are we meant to know? I thought they were extinct but maybe you know better?

Neanderthals are the one who are supposed to be extinct, until I found out, I was one of them. The rest of humanity or Cro-Magnon, with a little mix of homo erectus & other variants.

Thanks - brain failure on my part. Well I guess I'm living up to the Ornery maxim of being wrong.

32

General Comments / Re: Stuart Parker’s “March of Grotesques”

« on: May 05, 2023, 02:20:03 PM »

Does that generally work on Cro-Magnons? It makes me feel uncomfortable. Set up red flex.

How are we meant to know? I thought they were extinct but maybe you know better?

33

General Comments / Re: The GOP war on women continues

« on: May 04, 2023, 02:04:43 PM »

Story so far is a little one sided - we have nothing about whether she was provoked - it seems a little unlikely to me that this happened unprovoked. Could be of course but we're a little bit shy of evidence for a conviction.

34

General Comments / Re: Death Dealing liars in the Nealy NYC subway case

« on: May 04, 2023, 01:48:04 PM »

What does "Salt by Hurley, garbage people" mean? I honestly have no idea.

35

General Comments / Re: Trump looses again

« on: May 04, 2023, 11:32:37 AM »

Really guys? Two hundred and twenty five times you need to ask the same question with an equal lack of standing?

Maybe the better question is why no one had standing to enforce a Constitutional requirement.

Looks like neither of you read the full quote very carefully or were indulging in hyperbole (a risky activity on Ornery).  Those 225 cases were split into a number of failure modes not all of which were lack of standing, the rest were (to paraphrase) simply bo**ocks.

36

General Comments / Re: E Jean Carrolls lawsuit

« on: May 04, 2023, 11:22:24 AM »

I think that Trump's statement clearly shows "recklessness as to consent" which you condemn earlier or are you prepared to argue otherwise? and whilst I'm more than prepared to believe that Trump is sufficiently deluded to think he has done nothing wrong, that doesn't mean he hasn't.

37

General Comments / Re: Cutting the Judas cradle out of the LGB flag

« on: May 03, 2023, 01:55:26 PM »

These transfers violate Geneva Convention standards on the treatment of prisoners.

But the Geneva Convention doesn't apply unless there is a war going on that these people are somehow involved in? And yes - I do know that you've never said that the GC actually could be applied here.

38

General Comments / Re: Trump looses again

« on: April 24, 2023, 04:24:14 AM »

What I said in 2008 about Obama’s birth certificate is the saying that I say today, they both sides, or being hypocrites, because both of them would be saying what the other side or saying, if Obama was Republican.

Even were that true, and the whole Birther thing seems to me much more a GOP than Dem thing - it doesn't make it right. Dem's would have found a behavioural infelicity to latch onto.

39

General Comments / Re: Shoot first ask questions later

« on: April 24, 2023, 04:16:04 AM »

I absolutely have to give you the headline - if there is nuance I don't know 'cos I don't have an NYT subscription.
Drake - you say you read the NYT, so presumably have a subscription - any comment?

40

General Comments / Re: Shoot first ask questions later

« on: April 22, 2023, 05:14:19 AM »

Then until one of us or someone else produces a New York Times article that says such a thing, we are at an impass.

On the whole, the onus would seem to be on you Pete as you are the one who claims to have read such an article or if that wasn't your claim to clarify your statement.

Since I never said that I read such an article, I carry no such onus. It’s easy enough for you or anyone to look at what I actually said on this thread. If you can get that right, then I’d be happy to explain what I meant.

OK - did you or did you not say?:

The only thing that I trusted the New York Times for this year was evidence that the Biden administration is involved in human trafficking. Again, admission against interests.

If you didn't say that then fair enough but I'm confused.

I have to admit that that statement doesn't explicitly say that you read such an article, but it strongly implies it. If you didn't read an article in the NYT then on what basis were you trusting them for that evidence?

41

General Comments / Re: The Last Actual DemocratIc Candidate

« on: April 21, 2023, 05:15:55 AM »

From what I've read invermectin works well if happen to have the condition it is designed to treat (parasitic worms). If you have parasitic worms and covid life is a lot worse than just having one or the other. In countries where parasitic worms are endemic invermectin can, on average, help. I don't know if you class the US as a country where parasitic worms are endemic?

42

General Comments / Re: Shoot first ask questions later

« on: April 21, 2023, 05:08:08 AM »

Then until one of us or someone else produces a New York Times article that says such a thing, we are at an impass.

On the whole, the onus would seem to be on you Pete as you are the one who claims to have read such an article or if that wasn't your claim to clarify your statement. As you are well aware it is all but impossible for Drake to prove that no such article exists.

43

General Comments / Re: The very wholesome, uplifting, joyful internet

« on: April 20, 2023, 08:03:33 AM »

Oh, I am already fully domesticated. My cat will state at the water glass on my night stand when it is empty, and I will go refill it immediately so she can have a drink. I gave up long ago.

Heh! Nice to know that there is another cat (besides mine) that does that to their human. Cat water bowls are for inferior beings.

Now the little criminals are trying to convince me to adopt a tiny one.

And I've fallen for that one too... I'm doomed.

44

General Comments / Re: The very wholesome, uplifting, joyful internet

« on: April 20, 2023, 06:52:21 AM »

Yikes! Pete is right!

45

General Comments / Re: New York & Canada finally crack down on illegal Chinese police stations

« on: April 18, 2023, 06:58:19 AM »

Ummm... what do you want us to say here? China engaged in spying - Shock Horror Probe! US/UK/Russia/India/Monaco engaged in spying - likewise.

46

General Comments / Re: The Manufacture of Justin Pearson

« on: April 11, 2023, 02:08:52 PM »

Yeah, I sort of get that. But by the same reasoning it does lead to an inability to use any positive terms and that is sad and possibly a bad thing.

47

General Comments / Re: The Manufacture of Justin Pearson

« on: April 11, 2023, 02:01:51 PM »

I clearly live under a rock (or at least in the UK :-) ). I hadn't got that articulate was a slur. I, personally, am white, well educated and frankly rubbish at public speaking/questions so I don't expect people in general to necessary to be articulate. I expect nearly all politicians to be articulate - it is pretty much required by the what I see as the job description.

48

General Comments / Re: Jesus and the Angry Babies

« on: April 11, 2023, 12:25:22 PM »

 de gustibus non disputandum

49

General Comments / Re: Jesus and the Angry Babies

« on: April 11, 2023, 12:13:50 PM »

Provocatively titled piece of art that I wouldn't want on my wall (irrespective of title).

50

General Comments / Re: The Mouse that roared

« on: March 30, 2023, 03:08:05 PM »

Well, I live and learn - that makes sense.