This is like when people tell others that they eat food “wrong”. It’s what she likes, not what you like.
This is like when people tell others that they eat food “wrong”. It’s what she likes, not what you like.
Am I stupid? I had no idea there was any symbolism in those numbers.
Seems there was a missing “as” that’s in the article now.
Sir, the submarine dived perfectly!
Excellent, how did it fare when it came back up?
Up…? Uh…
I never did like the CDE style window decorations, but I do rather miss the old school docks.
They’re honestly probably the only ones who would buy it. Without Jones’ “celebrity” propping it up it’s basically just a scam dick-pills company which are a dime a dozen. Who’s going to invest in that?
The Onion should totally buy it.
Yeah. You’re talking about 0.0001% of the users though. For everyone else it’s “I don’t want to pay for this”.
That’s the oss model.
Very true.
Again - my point being made. Why even mention it if not to poison the well?
Yes. Which is why it’s very misleading to say that glyphosate is “classed as a ‘probable human carcinogen’” without any context.
Most people will assume that means it’s more dangerous than it is.
Like - if you phrased it as “glyphosate is about as carcinogenic as a steak” then it rather loses its punch as a propaganda statement.
I can’t fault anyone who’s untrusting of a system that continuously covers lie after lie with more lies
I can and will. Learn some basic critical thinking skills and apply them. Throwing your hands up and ranting about how “the system is broken” is mopey teenager shit.
Things are far more complicated than your whiny rant. They world is shades of gray rather than the simplistic “bad guy in black / good guy in white” situation that you characterize it as.
The WHO considers “red meat” to be a “probable carcinogen”.
The question is: are these new levels still considered “safe”?
It’s not the method if counting that’s bad - it’s the mandatory counting for all votes. It’s going to take weeks to process.
“I want to repent of what I wrote before,”
He apologized for what he wrote.
You need to let people change their mind. You want it to be easy for Christians to say “I was wrong”. By attacking them for doing so you raise a barrier to change.
His “word salad” means something to other Christians. If it helps them to also change their minds then that’s great! He’s likely to be far more effective at it than atheists yelling “your bible means Jack shit”.
Seems generous.
Reporters are very often not experts in the things they report on. You don’t want them injecting their own personal thoughts into every article. Picture an anti-vax reporter reporting on a CDC briefing.
They’re reporting on what the guy said so that you know what was said. You can make the determination on whether it has merits or not and, in fact, you have. There are times where you need press to push back - that’s Journalism. But your average on-the-street reporter who isn’t an expert in everything isn’t equipped to do more than “observe and report” which is fine.
This is exactly the kind of law enforcement message that reporters should examine and challenge, rather than mindlessly repeat.
I hate this sort of criticism. 90% of reporting is … reporting. It’s not editorializing.
I like jbake. Create templates, pages are either html or markdown. Pretty easy to use.