iNow

This just reinforces my long held contention that chocolate is actually a vegetable.

That's not what I was saying. Unsure why you think we're in agreement. Putin saying it sank due to an accident is like when people said it wasn't covid that killed the diabetic, but their diabetes. Well... they were doing fine until that covid hit, much like the ship was doing fine until that missile hit. It doesn't matter whether or not someone hates Putin, and this thread isn't about the finer intricacies of hate versus love. It's about stopping unwarranted slaughter of innocents and anyone who dares call themselves Ukrainian.

Mostly it was Russian pride and reputation that sank.

Interpretation and judgement are funny that way. Two people looking at situation often see different things. Such is the nature of interpretation and judging, and one’s outlook on the world cannot be subtracted from the process.

This isn't accurate either, though. There were SEVERAL candidates who met the criteria and from THAT subpopulation the choice was made. KBJ was NOT predetermined.

Don't be such a snowflake. It was a joke. /pokingsticks

I'm noticing a pattern, too, specifically one demonstrative of schizoid tendencies.

Map of what happened in Bucha compiled by the NYT as told by local officials, coroners, and witnesses who've helped uncover details of many civilian executions committed by Russian troops while there. "Man who went out for bread," and "family of four" tell the real story here, IMO. "Mother shot next to daughter." Maybe someone should start a thread regarding the bad "optics" of Russian stating it's military priorities and how they agree with the decision but think they should've kept it quiet.

Paraphrasing an old legal adage: When you have policy on your side, pound the policy. When you have history on your side, pound the history. When you have neither on your side, pound the process (aka pound the table)

People like to say Biden is a gaffe machine, and as we all know a gaffe in Washington is when a politician says out loud something everyone already knows to be true.

And yet he confirmed I was correct.

Are you being forced to keep logging in and posting?

$800 Million more in US aid approved today, including weapons systems specifically designed for fights like these (javelins, howitzers, etc) and should be there within a week

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you

That doesn't make it any better... the fact that you're spamming this all around the internet

Just paste it, indeed. 🙄 https://www.google.com/search?q="Many+patterns+occur+in+nature+without+the+help+of+a+designer+–+snowflakes%2C+tornados%2C+hurricanes%2C+sand+dunes%2C+stalactites%2C+rivers+and+ocean+waves.+These+patterns+are+the+natural+result+of+what+scientists+categorize+as+chaos+and+fractal"&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS796US796&oq="Many+patterns+occur+in+nature+without+the+help+of+a+designer+–+snowflakes%2C+tornados%2C+hurricanes%2C+sand+dunes%2C+stalactites%2C+rivers+and+ocean+waves.++These+patterns+are+the+natural+result+of+what+scientists+categorize+as+chaos+and+fractal"&aqs=chrome..69i57.1393j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Just needed the addition of the word “some.” What “some” men consider attractive… The insertion of the word “many” would’ve worked, too.

FYI, when people mention the idea of you trolling, hijacking threads, being off-topic, and contributing nothing of value to discussions more broadly, they're referring to posts like these. Please don't reply. I've extended the time you've gone off topic by responding with this feedback and if you wish to pursue it further, this thread is definitely NOT the place to do so. Excellent point, but I really didn't want to spend that much time researching the demographics of jurists specifically just to make my obvious (and hopefully somewhat humorous) point.

Incorrect. I see your issues with reading comprehension rearing their ugly head here yet again. Me: "Each time we recall an experience we engage the narrative portions of our brains and ever so slightly rewrite it until sometimes the entire memory becomes false to the point of fiction." Area54: "Memory works in peculiar ways. Initially we do not remember what happened, but what we remember is an interpretation of what we think happened. When this memory is revisited it is revised. Repeatedly. Moreover, research has shown that false memories are readily created."

Exactly! Exactly... wrong. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/viruses-can-help-us-as-well-as-harm-us/ "A decade ago researchers were barely aware that the human virome existed. Today we see the vast virome as an integral part of the larger human microbiome, a crazy quilt of passive and active microscopic organisms that occupy almost every corner of our being. We have been mapping the virome for more than 10 years, and the deeper we investigate, the more the virome looks like a partnership that can influence our daily lives positively as well as negatively. Recent research shows we could even harness the virome to promote our own health. Investigators at the Rockefeller University, for example, purified an enzyme from a virus that kills bacteria found in patients who are struggling against methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infection. The results were so encouraging that the Food and Drug Administration designated the enzyme as a “breakthrough therapy.” Today we routinely speak about the “good” and “bad” bacteria in our lives. Viruses fall into the same categories." You may as well be claiming that fingers can't do much but pick peoples noses. It's equivalently correct. The rest of your post follows this same pattern. More chaff than wheat.

The fact that each time we recall an experience we engage the narrative portions of our brains and ever so slightly rewrite it until sometimes the entire memory becomes false to the point of fiction is a fact. Facts are not conspiratorial.

I see. So saying in advance that you plan to exclude half the population is not enough for you to comment. They said “I’ll pick a female” and you were silent. Okay, I can get onboard with that. I notice, however, that you were also silent when they said they’d pick a black person. Last time this was preannounced, black individuals constituted 12% of the population. This means that saying in advance you plan to exclude 88% of the population was also not enough to prompt you to comment, neither then nor now. This is good, though. Now we’re finally getting somewhere. So here’s where are: Excluding 88%, a-ok. Excluding 94%, no bueno. Therefore, we know your threshold for speaking out is somewhere between those two numbers. So, what is the threshold for you to comment on nominations like this? Is it 89% exclusion? 90% exclusion? 91%? 92%? Or, did they JUST barely miss your personal threshold of 93% exclusion being okay, but not 94%? That’d be a real bummer to lose your support for preannouncing by a such a mouses ball hair like that, but hey… I guess it happens.

That’s totally fair, but once again… why haven’t we heard from these people all of the many other times the criteria of skin color and gender were preannounced? What’s different this time? (Or, more specific to your own stance, why were you silent in wanting us to make our union more perfect those many other times… why the sudden need to realize this isn’t ideal this time… even when it also happened just 3 years ago)?

Thanks for the tip (and yes, I started this thread over 3 months before the invasion so it's evolved)