iNow

Tariffs on others are taxes on ourselves

A few issues dictate how active a thread is. Post length in the OP is only one relevant factor. In general, try to convey thoughts concisely, but with enough detail that context is clear. Too much detail or too lengthy a post may reduce those who fully read it. I'm often on my mobile and have kids running around me or am running through an airport. Too long a post is too much of a pain in the ass to bother with. Balance. The other is topic. Some topics lend themselves to easy answers, others are more controversial. As sad as it is, it's the controversial threads that generate the most heat and activity. It's like a tennis match. If the server tosses an ace, it's a super quick match. However, if a volley starts, a single game can last hours... same in these discussions. Depends on how much volleying is going on. Then, there are threads without a clear correct answer, threads where personal opinions are welcome and equally valid (like in politics). These often go back and forth (volleying again) for tens of pages because people are generally just repeating their opinions and there's no easy way to show them one is right while the other is wrong. Back to your question on length: Try to summarize your thoughts as if you're typing / reading them on a mobile phone. If clarification is needed, you can always add more detail later. Give the executive summary or the "elevator version" where you can convey the important bits successfully during a ride on an elevator (or a "lift" if you're across the pond).

What idiot called it a “randomized clinical trial controlled with placebo” and not “trick or treatment”

Just in case anyone cares, the OP won’t be returning:

Not to pile on here, but I took issue with this, too. This is plainly inaccurate. I have a custom spear. It's for survival. I have a custom trapping cage. It's for survival. I have a custom insulated jacket. It's for survival. I have a custom fire starter. It's for survival. I could go on...

I know the OP was just spam, but I did enjoy this episode of a Craftsman's Legacy about knife making: http://www.craftsmanslegacy.com/legacy_society/episodes/season_1/The-Knife-Maker

Cannibals and slave owners seem to think so. What possible motivation would they have to enact laws detrimental to those around them?

I really want people of the world to start pronouncing the word “pizzazz” as Pizza-Zs

I’m shocked by this. We weren’t taking in enough revenue to cover our expenditures. That’s why we had a deficit. So, we decided to cut our revenue. The deficit got worse. It really just doesn’t make sense. Our best course of action is obviously to cut revenues more. Basic math demands this as the only logical path forward. ...even the blind could see this coming... Side note: Tye US government pays $1.5 Billion every single day just in interest payments, a number rapidly approaching $2B daily

It was a request for clarification, not an overstatement of your position (which, as my post clearly indicates, was not entirely clear to me).

I have to take issue with the implication being made, both implicitly and explicitly, throughout this thread that neg reps are only being given to one side of discussions... that "the left" is unfairly treating "the right," or "democrats" unfairly using the voting system against "republicans" or "liberals" against "conservatives." You perhaps can't see it, but I chalked up a shit ton of neg reps myself in the Kavenaugh thread. Frankly, that's just the cost of debating politics (and religion). Not the best analogy, but it's more of a gladiators arena than snow-cone stand; more of an octagon than a nobel conference. It's a different space and that's just how it goes... With me on that thread... Many of the neg reps I got were from someone erasing a positive rep someone else gave me, but many others were not. Many were given to me for the same type of disagreement SJ describes in the OP, and I say... Oh well. This is a first-world problem, not worthy of my worry. Why are we even talking about this? The rep system is available to all members here and it it's available for use equally. Given we're talking about politics, it may be useful to point out that it's very democratic (with a small D). I don't have numbers in front of me, but I've probably received hundreds (or even a few thousand) neg reps while participating as a member here, but you'll still see that my overall reputation remains quite positive. On net, my posts are positive and I like to think that's because I'm a quality poster that makes coherent arguments and who manages to pushback forcefully on difficult topics. I like to think that me being in the green is NOT just because the other members here are lemmings who happen to share my political views or ideology (though, I stipulate some of my reps surely fit that category). Sigh... This same question comes up perennially about the rep system, and the outcome is always the same. Some like it, some don't. Big whoop... Can we move on , please? On net, it's consistently deemed to be more beneficial than not. If someone has a consistently red reputation, it probably is a good idea to take a harder look at the poster (if for no other reason than their seeming inability to convey an point in a manner that people of all ideologies find acceptable). Sure... It's possible the system is being used unfairly, but far more likely is that the person showing regularly in the red really is a rather shitty poster with potentially horrible positions, consistent obstinance, trollish approach, logical fallacies, willful ignorance, ignoring clear counterargument and evidence and the like. The suggestion here is mostly that neg reps are almost cultish, but that ignores the reality that even folks like me racked up a bunch of neg reps in that thread, and in just about every other political thread, too. Oobla dee, oobla da... life goes on. It's just the nature of political discussion, and I take issue with the implication that me (and others like me) are the aggressors. It's very one-sided to suggest this, and one-sidedness seems to be the core issue being decried.

Do you feel this point was previously in dispute? Are you suggesting “they” all act as some sort of homogenous unvaried and unwavering bloc?

You seem to suggest the fault is theirs, while I suspect most of the opposition is being manufactured and exaggerated. Both are clearly true, but one clearly matches the actual scale of what we’re seieng and hearing while the other does not. Hence, my suggestion of false equivalence.

Sadly, you appear to be suggesting an equivalency which is false. That’s where I was applying my criticism, Peeps or no.

And even nearly all that is owned by right wing Sinclair group. https://www.vox.com/2018/4/6/17202824/sinclair-tribune-map

I love how one or two Democrats taken out of context result in everyone’s parties getting in a twist, yet not a peep about years of screaming lock her up and saying people,should be carried out on stretchers or Obama tarred and feathered. Myopia, hypocrisy, who cares? Same result.

Those are all awesome, michel, but they’re nothing compared to their Atlas robot doing parkour last week:

I think a lot of it is about energy levels and whether one is riding spikes and valleys or is relatively consistent and stable. Its the difference between eating rice, veggies, and fish versus eating candy bars and Red Bull’s, to use an extreme example of my point A measured diet full of healthy foods and one that’s well balanced overall IMO helps quite a bit with achieving a balanced mood. As a type 1 diabetic for 3 decades, I know all too well the issues that come with big swings / ups and downs of unstable glucose levels. It’s not something we can look at in a vacuum, though, as sleep and exercise and even baseline neurochemistry play critical roles. Diet is one piece of a much larger puzzle. Nutrition affects the growth and potential of our bodies, the function of our minds and moods, and (with the important caveats and wholly valid warnings Charon notes above), the composition and impact of our gut bacteria.

Diet IMO is less relevant than the gut microbiome. It’s these which matter, and I suspect diets effect on them is where one should focus Will need to defer to our friends for a more specific researched answer

Democrats did this, where exactly?

You asked above about obligation. To be be perfectly clear, I’m under no obligation to address anything you say. I do hope to convince you and other readers to agree with me, but this is hardly a debate. To avoid confusion, you need to know and accept that this is a discussion. Try not to conflate the two. I shared previously that my replies are a sign of respect. Logic dictates that my nonresponse is quite likely a sign of the opposite. I won’t go so far as to call your other points red herrings, but the points I do ignore tend IMO to be irrelevant distractions unworthy of my attention.

Page 24...

I appreciate your support

Change comes from MORE right thinking people being more vocal and supportive. It’s a battle of hearts and minds... and numbers. Can I count you among my allies in this? It’s not about obligation. It’s about respect. I respect you enough to engage in difficult subjects maturely. Do you respect me enough to seek common ground instead of easy barbs and lazy trolls? (btw, no is a perfectly acceptable answer)

But I doubt you feel the need to have a friend walk you to your car after dark. I’ve not likely had as much to drink as you. Let’s continue this tomorrow. Cheers. And I think you have a few issues if you don’t realize just how common her entirely valid fears are amongst all women on this planet.