The concept of some guy saying he is fan-tasty conjures up all kinds of mental images I wish I didn't have now.
Sobol probably would have too, if he hadn't been so bad his non-coms revolted on him. Made a hell of a team out of them, but was not fit to lead them to the latrine.
I'm not a millenial, so I hit space 4-5 times while typing that. If you could all get off of my lawn, that'd be great.
Well obviously the only thing left is to stake out his movements, wait till he's not home, and break in.
Or maybe put an ad on craig's list mentioning high value items and a disconnected security system.
Or yeah, maybe small claims court.
Now that there is funny, I don't care who you are!
"No, not 'is'. Wouldn't get very far in life not saying 'is'."
I'm really the first to think of this?
A point LCT brought up that hasn't been addressed is the concept of being independent from sources and access. I doubt any media organization can be completely independent of concerns of how they are viewed by the subject they cover. You want people to talk to you you can't burn them too badly or they'll stop. Thus the off the record problem.
Also the problem of conducting a tough interview. If you take as an example a person who by position is important to what you are covering and you interview them tough, you run the risk of them deciding to never give you another interview. That depends on a lot of factors, not least of which is the integrity of the interviewer and interviewee and what the viewing public will tolerate. If, hypothetically, coach Day was to start taking questions only from ESPN because he got his feel feels hurt by tough questions from the Dispatch, CBS, 11W, and Bleacher Report; it would be up to the general viewing audience to decide whether to put up with that with their attention span, donations, and general support. How we all react if ESPN's questions turned sycophantic in an effort to maintain their exclusive access is a further dimension to the larger question.
I don't understand why it is so hard for people (not you) to have two thoughts in their head that are reasonably valid, but when taken to extremes contradict. Yes, rape is 100% the fault of the rapist. Full stop. Rapists are predators and they are out there walking among us. Full stop. Taking reasonable precautions can lower the change that any particular individual becomes a victim. Full stop.
That may not be right, fair, or the way the world ought to work, but it certainly appears true to me. I think the key thing between victim blaming and urging sensible precautions is less about how the victim is viewed but rather how the rapist is viewed. A rapist is a disgusting piece of human filth worthy only of the full weight of societal justice just the same, no matter what their victim's circumstances were. If this thought is kept foremost in mind, it ought to be possible to discuss reasonable precautions without 'victim blaming' being an issue. Our problem arises from all the people who don't now, and certainly haven't in the past held to that line of thinking. The history of 'asking for it' and related sentiments along with examples of poor enforcement of society's justice certainly make it understandable where one side would be gun-shy about anything that smacks of that line of reasoning. But understandable as that may be, there is room for an intellectual discussion on the issue that needn't devolve to the pointless extremes.
Texans wore gray when it mattered, they're historical south to me.
Okay, and I'm not trying to convince you of anything, nor am I even saying that I believe that site or the various cut-and-pastes you have are inherently sexist or anything else. Just maintaining a healthy skepticism for about a situation that looks like a true believer preaching their gospel. Doesn't make the gospel wrong, nor does it mean the criticisms are fair. People have to decide for themselves on these things.
Regardless, take care. I'm not against you and have often liked many of your posts on various topics. I'm also about to depart for vacation, so I'm feeling generally well-disposed towards most at this point.
I'm not asking him to prove innocence, merely pointing out that that rhetorical trick can be conveniently used by the guilty and innocent alike in response to criticism that is valid or invalid as the case may be. It sounds really reasonable and we all know of cases where accusations of -ism are overblown and off-base, so it conforms to things we have observed. But that reasonableness and familiarity don't, in and of themselves, prove anything. All that is proven is that the go to response to criticism (which the original critic should have given examples of) is a rhetorical trick. Perhaps that's all such a statement deserves but given your past views on 'gender war,' I for one am going to retain some skepticism.
When you say it is rare for someone to point out the irrationality of "meant to be", I think you may be seeing things from a perspective that just hasn't been exposed to it as much. In this, or the other thread you mentioned finding comfort in religion / bible study. At the risk of way overgeneralizing, there is a strong bias in many of those communities towards the concept of a divine plan. That line of thinking does lend itself to concepts like destiny, meant to be, inshallah, etc. There are plenty of people out there comfortably living without the concept of a divine plan and along with it concepts like twu wuv (much as they can make for entertaining fiction). I wonder if you just haven't been exposed to as much of that, because it certainly is out there in today's society.
Please don't take that as a knock on religion though, as if it works for you, that is what matters most.
Doesn't seem like a feminine social convention, rather one that is broadly human. I've seen it used in race, politics, gender, sexual identity, law enforcement, military service, and in all manner of Scotsman identification.
The problem is, that line of attack, (and ones similar to it) can be valid, even if they have become overused and cliche. Call a Klansman a racist. What if he replies that you are just parroting an easy response that foists the responsibility of confronting his critical ideas back on him, all while shaming him for forming an ideology based on what he (and now a community of many others) confirms by observations? Has he won the argument? Has he proven he isn't a racist? Or has he just used a rhetorical tool to confuse the issue and not address the argument?
Be careful of 'conversion' experiences when you are vulnerable. We are much more psychologically open to a wide variety of influences (cults, various religions, radical ideologies, etc.) when we are at a low point. Feeling down and someone offers a ready-made worldview that makes it all clear. I'm not saying that that is what this is, but this comment (of yours) does raise a red flag in my opinion. Might bear further scrutiny.
As a related note, it always amazed me at my kids' soccer games how the low-info parents would ascribe every win to the kids playing well and wanting it, and every loss to them being tired, out of sorts, or not playing well. The quality of the opponent (almost always the deciding factor) never entered into their thinking.
My daughter's team is switching to a harder league this year, and I can't wait to hear the various reasons why they don't win as consistently. Put a couple losses together and it'll start getting attributed to coaching.
Luck...Luck always changes...
4 or 76?
As I've mentioned before, if CA goes I suspect Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii go with it. Then New England. I view this a Russian and Chinese wet dream, and as such, I hate the idea.
There are various exit initiatives on the web being pushed by various shady sources. California has one, and so does Texas, along with parts or all of New England.
I'm with you, I prefer united and strong. I have a lot of unfavorable opinions about people who want to tear my country apart, and until recently I had to translate them into Russian, Arabic, or Chinese. But part of being a free country is that citizens get to have unpopular opinions without being forced to leave, so as much as I hold those who want to break our country up in contempt, I still tolerate their existence and hold sacred their right to protest in a way I see as deeply unpatriotic.
Cool. China could bid against us for Pearl Harbor basing rights. woohoo!
If what is alleged is true, a lot of people who belong behind bars will breath easier if he was silenced.
Great story, and thanks.
On the car, I'm sure it was worth the memories, but as an investment, IBM stock would have outperformed most of the 69 vette's I see on the internet for sale, and that doesn't even factor in the dividends. Collectibles generally aren't worth it as an investment.
Again though, that ain't why you bought it. ;)
Fast forward 1-2,000 years. If people are still talking about history at that time the moon landing is probably the #1 thing you can count on them knowing about. Sure, there are wars we know about and wars we've forgotten about; leaders who we remember and many more we don't; but the first time we set foot off of earth? That'll matter even 10,000 years from now in a way that the British bombing Pearl Harbor to start the French and Indian war in an effort to kill Ronald Reagan won't.
I already got shot down for connecting it presidentially, so I'm going to go with, "negative ghost rider, the pattern is full."
Lotta good points there. And as much as I like Fickell, I agree with you. Now, if he beats us this year and goes on a wild ride, I might start buying into the Fickell hype.