iNow

Yes. The low number of minimum wage jobs as a proportion of the overall workforce is a particular reason your idea "can't offset any ill effects of a diluted labor pool."

If you're running a fan, allowing an opening on the other side of the room helps... whether it's a window, a door, or a slight opening in the zipper of your curtain. More air pushes through the system this way than it would without an air intake on the other side. As for how long it will take... that will depend entirely on how much of the product is there, how thick it is, how warm it is, what is the humidity in the area, and how much air you're moving through the system per minute. Sorry I can't be of more help. Like you, my experience is DIY

Naphtha evaporates extremely quickly. Heating will speed that. The rest really is about ventilation and removing/replacing the noxious air. When I’m wood working and using these chemicals, I sometimes create a negative pressure environment to help move larger volumes of air through the area. Conceptually, it’s like having a vent hood in a chemistry lab. Open a window on one side of the room and place a strong fan on high speed facing outward. On the other side of the room from this, slightly crack open another window or a door (just a bit) to replace the air being evacuated by the fan. If you’re warming the area with a non flame heater, just place that heating device closer to the affected area. The blowing fan at the window won’t change the focus of the heat in any meaningful way so long as it’s far enough away.

The Republican Party at the federal level is broken. The slide into crazy we see at the state level shows no a sign of abating or slowing. Quite the opposite really

We now see the Oregon Republican party joining in the condemnation... the question is whether this does more to condemn themselves or the target of their ire.

Imaginations https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/faqs/faq.html#webbbetter https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/comparisonWebbVsHubble.html

Can you copy/paste the A parts from each PDF into a single Word document, then Save As and change file type to PDF from Word?

I have to agree with your framing. These behaviors were all attempts to overthrow a legitimately elected government. Thank you for clarifying and reinforcing your point. I missed it the first time. This is another excellent way to frame the discussion. Thank you for introducing it.

Never gonna happen, mate. If only hope were a viable strategy. Again, this doesn’t feel like a fair or valid summary of my stance. I’m unsure how this is what you came away with from my comments This is inaccurate. Many were their with this intention. Many with military backgrounds arrived with mission objectives and equipment needed to execute it. Many support a 2nd civil war and some wore T-shirts saying “Camp Auschwitz” and slogans that “6 Million Wasn’t Enough,” or beat officers to death with fire extinguishers and flag poles, but not all were there to overthrow the government. Unless this a wording issue and your mention of “insurrectionists” is intended to be a subset of everyone who breached the capitol?

I anticipated this point and will highlight that this is why I keep focusing on violence in the BLM protests being the exception only seen at the margins. It wasn’t the primary activity nor the central strategy. It was the outlier, and was often provoked by police. The same cannot be said of the siege in Washington DC. The violence there was the point. It was the central motivating principle of the event. Insurrection was the primary purpose for being there. Surely this is a valid rebuttal and I’m not splitting hairs unreasonably, right? One side keeps talking of violent takeover of the government and actively planning a 2nd civil war. That puts a new and important lens on the framing of the conversation.

@MigL Hope you don't mind, but I'm gonna take our PM exchange into the thread here (keeping your point unquoted, will share my reply here instead). We're still talking passed each other. While I said I can understand the underlying motivations, I have NOT made excuses for violence perpetrated in the name of BLM. There is violence happening as part of the movement. I don't agree with it. I'm not making excuses for it. I'm not pretending it doesn't exist. My primary point has been that the violence is the extreme outlier in BLM. It's marginal. It's super rare. It's uncommon. It's been inflated as a rightwing talking point. There has been violence. Some of it came from BLM protestors unprovoked. Some was provoked by police being too heavy handed and hitting peaceful protestors with clubs and firing tear gas into the faces of unarmed grandmothers. Some of it was rightwing extremists engaged in false flag operations. My primary point has been that it's a mistake to focus so much energy there... another example of of our white privilege. In these threads, people keep saying "it's horrible that another innocent black man was killed by another cop in another city, but destroying property has to stop." Yeah, okay... but try saying instead, "It's horrible that property is being destroyed, but these continued killings of innocent black men by police has to stop." See the difference? The pushback is saying you're prioritizing the wrong part... not that the violence is acceptable because it was done by "my team." Focusing so much on the tiny amounts of violence happening at the extreme margins of the movement distracts us from dealing with the issues motivating the movement itself. I'm not making excuses for the violence. I'm saying it's so rare that bringing up so often suggests an agenda, whether you're conscious of it or not. Please stop saying I support the violence. Please stop suggesting I'm making excuses for it. I'm simply not.

He'd be Thunderstruck if he did

No, and already covered this in this thread about 4 days ago:

Depends on how we choose to interpret ability to offer informed consent. As a general rule, we assume the child is not capable of consenting in an informed way

No, and there must admittedly be some nuance involved here. Despite my strong pushback against MigL, I acknowledge my previous several posts inaccurately imply a black and white binary state on this issue of violence. Instead, it's a fine line. Apologies in advance for the long post... I'll work to tighten up my thoughts on this as we proceed... Protests against unfairness in the system should be peaceful. Calling attention to asymmetries in policing and imprisonment and economic inequity itself should nearly always be peaceful, and exceptions rare. I don't support destruction of private property or harm to individuals and neighbors. We gain allies in the fight on principle when we express ourselves peacefully and on the merits, and we lose allies when pockets of violence arise and absorb all of the attention. The violent actions of the tiny few outliers wind up overshadowing the actions of the great many. The most important messages of the cause are lost amid the shade cast by the bright light of fires in our streets and violence in our cities. We keep seeing here even at SFN as we spend page upon page upon page talking about the 4 people who set a fire in Portland or Seattle instead of the 4 Million people who did not and who were calling attention to their just cause. Simply: I'm against violence for reasons of principle, morality, AND strategy. When we see violence in things like the George Floyd protests, it tends to be conducted against innocent targets... against private property and personal businesses which have nothing whatsoever to do with the cause or the systemic issues at play. It harms those who are not involved and does nothing to improve the situation. It's not focused in a way that will drive the change we seek. It simply creates easy enemies and caricatures for simplistic attack by "the other side." This is also why we saw so many false flag operations with police and rightwing nationalists pretending to be BLM setting fires and breaking windows... so many ridiculous fear-stoking claims about the millions of antifa... they knew it would deteriorate support for the cause and distract/derail us from the more important conversation. They were right, and that's exactly what happened. Even here... Everyone should welcome protest that drives change and pushes for police accountability, but that protest should NOT involve setting cars on fire in peoples driveways or breaking the windows at the local gas station or Target supercenter. I can empathize with the anger felt by those doing these things, but I don't condone their actions. Both can be true at once, and this is the point I've been trying (and failing) to convey here throughout. Likewise... Protests against government should also be peaceful whenever possible. I don't support storming the halls of our congress with zip ties, tazers, and shouts that we should hang elected officials in the gallows just erected 100 feet away on the capitol lawn. By all means, express your protest peacefully... make the case about election fraud, and do so with evidence. Gain the hearts and minds of those who disagree with you... make your case in court... but don't engage in vigilantism or mob "justice" like a bunch of rabid dogs. You asked me about American Revolution, and I will say peaceful attempts WERE made... for decades. Even the Declaration of Independence itself was peaceful. It was only after the King sent troops in response to it that the peace was broken. One can argue that was a similar insurrection and that we'd not have a country without it. That's fair. There surely are times when violence is in order once all other peaceful options are exhausted. Peaceful options had not, however, been exhausted with BLM. The peaceful approaches were the overwhelmingly majority. The violence was marginal at best and is being exaggerated... That's the point. What constitutes an appropriate response is also contingent on how the government responds to said peaceful protest. If the defenders of an unjust government use violence to suppress peaceful protest or to imprison those with whom they disagree (like the thousands of Navalny supporters Putin just arrested in Russia this weekend, for example), then perhaps violence is needed, but it still IMO must be tied to an underlying cause which is itself just and fair and which cannot be more successfully addressed by other means. When the government seeks to suppress peaceful protestors, that is perhaps when it is time to look to the words of founders like Thomas Paine who said, "when struggling to defend rights against tyranny, it is the violence which is done and threatened to our persons which conscientiously qualifies the use of arms." ... but not before. At the end of the day, what we consider violent and acceptable is subjective. I don't advocate or support it in the vast majority of cases. There will be exceptions, though. For me, BLM was NOT one of those exceptions. I felt peaceful protest was used 99.9% of the time, and that the movement would have been better received and more effective had that 0.01% not occurred. These threads at SFN are evidence enough of this... Look at how people perceive it. Look at how I'm being misinterpreted as supporting violence because I agree with their cause. Look at how far away we all are from discussing the actual issues which needs to be addressed. For these and other reasons, I don't support violence, even though across the vast chapters in the book of history I'm sure we can find a handful of exceptions that we agree seem to warrant it. tl;dr: Civic resistance is sometimes justified, and that those who oppose injustice and tyranny are sometimes permitted violence in self-defense. To be clear, this isn’t the same as suggesting that protesters ought to resort to arms. Nor do I, and I appreciate you calling me out on it.

The parents do, which would imply that parents should also be able to decide whether or not to lobotomize their children with psychopathic traits. This leads us to a conclusion that the benefits and safety of the procedure involved must outweigh the risks and probability of failure. Vaccines when proven safe have clearly demonstrated benefits to both the child and to society at large. The vaccines must first, however, be shown to be safe AND effective. What is the safe AND effective method of "curing" psychopathy? There isn't one, hence the analogy shows its limits lack of applicability.

I really don't know what to tell you at this point, mate. I'm explicitly stating that violence on either side is wrong and to be avoided. Then in response, you're claiming I support violence so long as it's for a cause I also support. That is plainly untrue. It is false. I have shared specific quotes of myself stating without equivocation that violence is wrong. As I know you're not a troll and are not likely misinterpreting me on purpose, I'm left only to conclude that you have a serious bias against my words and a blind spot in your understanding. You are misinterpreting and misrepresenting my stance. You are then arguing against that misrepresentation. It's a classic strawman, even if guided by good intentions and sincere beliefs. Please stop doing that. It's now been 3 weeks since the last time you levelled these false claims against me in this very thread. Shall I look for this false claim to reappear 3 weeks from now around Valentines Day? Just wondering how long it will be before I have to YET AGAIN clarify my stance that we are aligned about peaceful protests being okay and that we are also aligned that violence has no place in it.

Really? Where did I do that, exactly? You see, I ask because I recall doing EXACTLY the opposite. Let’s check the game tape and send this one to the booth: Yep. Exactly the opposite of what you claim. I’m gonna flag you for roughing the poster, penalize you 20 yards, and give you a loss of down. Just don’t let it happen again. I’m confident that my writing is clear, my points unambiguous, and that one must try very hard to twist my words into what you’re currently asserting.

Thanks for letting me live rent free inside your head for so long

I’m unsure where the spit should start, but feel a thread split is needed to address this separate path of needlessly personal claims of hypocrisy and double standards. Reporting this post to request that

I’ll withhold comment until these clear copious examples and quotes arrive

Yes. Please do. I’ll wait