I honestly never cease to be amazed at what folks can create with Lego...
Looking at that aerial footage, that is a seriously long distance for the truck to have travelled from the opposite lane, across opposing traffic, through the thicket and across the ice to that point. Was he hauling ass in that truck?
Can anyone translate the post-pucker incident dialog?
I was fortunate enough to actually witness a breakoff and rollover just last month during a boat trip at Tasman Lake (at the base of the Tasman Glacier on the South Island of NZ). Was one of the more incredible things I've ever seen... It made a booming snap and then bobbed and rotated itself with water cascading off of it until it settled into a more or less stable iceberg floating in the lake.
Apparently they had a huge number of 'bergs break off during the last two Christchurch earthquakes too... one of the largest of which has been nicknamed "The Cathedral" after the Christ Church Cathedral that was heavily damaged during the second quake.
Apparently they had a huge number of 'bergs break off during the last two Christchurch earthquakes too... one of the largest of which has been nicknamed "The Cathedral" after the Christ Church Cathedral that was heavily damaged during the second quake.
The title as written doesn't provide enough context to make that determination though... It certainly reads to me like the opening to an article about an Apple owned censorship initiative. And your example, conveniently without title casing, makes a better "case" than it would if it was "John's College" as it would presumably be as the title of the article and without any further context.
This previous article title, on the other hand, works, "Apple, Microsoft, and the 27 Other Tech Giants Who Support the Awful Internet Censorship Bill". You get your link baiting but it also makes sense to someone scanning the headlines in the right column of articles as to what sort of content to expect on-click. Best of both worlds, whereas the current article title really seems to be serving only one of those masters.
This previous article title, on the other hand, works, "Apple, Microsoft, and the 27 Other Tech Giants Who Support the Awful Internet Censorship Bill". You get your link baiting but it also makes sense to someone scanning the headlines in the right column of articles as to what sort of content to expect on-click. Best of both worlds, whereas the current article title really seems to be serving only one of those masters.
I know you are generalizing and its presumptive and anecdotal... but I'm on board with your train of thought. And I'm not sure I would restrain myself to comments made on this thread either when making the sweep.
Protest the government's perceived/real infringing on your rights and liberties through non-violent protest and be labeled a dirty jobless hippy who hates America.
Threaten to shoot government agents for infringing your right to bear arms and you are a patriot.
Bizarre.
Protest the government's perceived/real infringing on your rights and liberties through non-violent protest and be labeled a dirty jobless hippy who hates America.
Threaten to shoot government agents for infringing your right to bear arms and you are a patriot.
Bizarre.
"The officers earlier in the day had been encircled by kids who would not move to let them get out and they were greatly outnumbered."
That was what the officers themselves have reported, but it is not a verified fact and is heavily in dispute due to the large number of videos and photos that were taken at this incident. If you've only seen the one video of the kids being sprayed then I can understand your hesitation to take this at face value, but there are quite a few pics and vids circulating that show the latter statement to be a less than honest assessment of what happened both at the time of the spraying and the lead up that you are curious about.
That was what the officers themselves have reported, but it is not a verified fact and is heavily in dispute due to the large number of videos and photos that were taken at this incident. If you've only seen the one video of the kids being sprayed then I can understand your hesitation to take this at face value, but there are quite a few pics and vids circulating that show the latter statement to be a less than honest assessment of what happened both at the time of the spraying and the lead up that you are curious about.
Hmmmm... we both arrived at He-Man references through differing means. Might this be a collective unconscious nod to the apocalypse being somehow related to unattainable plastic musclemen body image issues?
Am I the only one for whom that skull mushroom cloud only made them think of the Castle Grayskull?
My sarcasmometer isn't working... you are not really advocating a slack cutting in the non-tailoring sense, are you?
That certainly is true of the central group of Kat, Prim, Gale and the fabulous Baker Boy, but the shots of the crowd and folks from District 12 don't appear to be wanting for groceries. Rosy apple cheeks instead of sallow is what I saw and it rang false from my recollection in the books where unless you hunt, own a shop, or are in a position of authority, you are starving.
I was assuming that the "cool video banner from the future" was actually Katniss in her parade uniform just about to or currently aflame (noting flame like shapes licking to the left and right of her head).
Interested... one thing stood out rather glaringly though: District 12 doesn't look nearly dark or sooty enough, and no one looks remotely close to starving to death.
"George Lucas hates women people!"
:) That cartoon is absolutely me... Although my posture is probably worse.
Well, count yourself lucky if this your only pet peeve. I'm pretty sure I'm a pompous ass about a whole panoply of subjects.
Well, count yourself lucky if this your only pet peeve. I'm pretty sure I'm a pompous ass about a whole panoply of subjects.
He was just teasing you... isle vs. aisle.
1 - My actions are not illegal, irrational or non-logistical. Nor are they "fantasy" justice.
Given the number and size of carry on bags allowed in both national and international flights, there are more seats than there are spaces for the luggage allowed on most commercial aircraft. Thus, you are enforcing "rules" (here, I'll put it quotes if it will help you get your mind out of the literal) you have made up to justify removing peoples bags from the overhead bin above you if they aren't seated in your row. That "rule" is a product of your imagination. It is a fantasy "rule" that you have extrapolated from a perception that "lazy douche bags" are violating the baggage policy and as a result you have a right and privilege to remove people's luggage from the bin over your aisle. There is only logic in your argument so long as you basically ignore all possible extenuating circumstances. That may or may not be the literal case with you but its certainly implied by the tenor and text of your posts.
2 - Saying I have "no interest in any rules except those you've made up" is an unsubstantiated claim and a sweeping generalization.
Don't be ridiculous, you know I am talking about this specific situation. For someone with such a distorted take on this one subject you sure can be ridiculously literal... but only when it suits you I guess.
3 - You don't know what "circumstances" exist within my life, nor can you presume to know exactly how I might act or react to them.
Uh huh. You are proving to be a pretty good character assassin through your own statements describing how you act, so feel free to keep it up.
4 - Your "100% of your fellow travelers" claim is false.
"I really don't need anybody's approval to move a bag that most likely should have been stowed elsewhere. I have zero sympathy for lazy douche bags who board the plane with oversized bags or too many bags. In my book, they violated the baggage policy, so they can go suck a bag of dicks."
Those people certainly exist. But they aren't everyone. You are the one that has painted this as black and white so don't whine about it when folks attempt to show that there is grey. You blithely omit extenuating circumstance to fit your expectations and justify your actions. And your described prescription to this luggage affront is to damn everyone, even if its just a trickle down effect from those lazy douche bags that have forced an efficient traveller such as myself to occupy the space in the bin above you. So even if the lazy douchebags are the target of your wrath, the innocent aren't spared by your solution.
5 - Your claim that I reject rules and make up my own is fictitious, as I have not broken any rules.
Literalist. Again, you are just being myopic. You shouldn't need a "rule" to tell you be civil, but evidently you do. You are partaking in mass transit with possibly hundreds of other people but the most basic of rationalizations about why someone might need to use part of the storage bin is apparently alien logic. Regardless, my restating of slaws posts about the actual airline policies are redundant. You evidently don't want to hear about any of that.
6 - Your storage to seat ratio is a faulty premise, assuming everyone requires identical storage, plus you don't know which airlines I fly on or what their storage capacity is.
Actually, I'm willing to bet it is your assumption that is faulty here. Agree to disagree as I have no idea where one would find that sort of information. Still, you are the one that painted this as black and white, starting with your opening premise, "I would like to suggest a $1,500 fine for those caught putting their bags in other people's overhead compartments. A $3,000 fine for those who sit in the back rows but put their bags in the very front of the plane." Back in reality we understand that statements like that don't actually have to include a list of airframe manufacturers and model numbers to be understood... I understood your intent just fine. So, I've done you the courtesy of not demanding that list because its absurd and frivolous. Unless you really are interested in drafting up some sort of legal framework on an airframe by airframe basis.
7 - It's a lie to say that I've implied "ownership" of anything on a plane: That is only your highly subjective interpretation.
OK, well, if an opinion is a lie, then I guess we are all liars. In my world, "intent" is all that is needed. Your statements and how I and the majority of people reading and responding to them have interpreted them speak for themselves. Ownership is a broad enough term to easily cover the attitude and resulting actions that you attempt to validate. You feel you "own" (see, there are those quotes again) the storage bin area above you by dint of its relationship to your seat and row. Thus you are compelled to protect your presumed property by ousting trespassers. Don't make me whip out the Mirriam Webster just to satisfy your literalist bent only when it suits you. Your statements painted you into this corner, not mine.
8 - I am entitled to do or say as I see fit unless it is illegal: This is not "imaginary entitlement" it is called free will.
Its true. Being an asshole to your fellow travelers isn't illegal and its certainly an expression of free will. But entitlement is a belief that you deserve special privileges, not necessarily an action... I would argue that your removal of other passengers' baggage is the act of free will, but that act is inspired by your imagined entitlement. What better segue word to...
9 - You need to find a new word besides "entitled". Buy a thesaurus?
Probably... Nah, it just seems so appropriate. Although in writing this it occurs to me that pompous works too, and it includes aural notes like "pomp" which seems to adequately describe the flourish of your actions and "ass" which you are most certainly acting like when you perform in the way you describe. Thanks for helping me dig deep syntax coach!
------
Yep, I totally peeped your comments because I thought I remembered that I usually really liked your posts... And I was right. There is some great stuff there and a lot that I agree with. Most, in fact. But it left me wondering how a generally levelheaded (if self described abnormal) poster could be so far afield. Beyond that, its not just how vehemently I feel you are wrong here but that the horrific attitude, and yes, entitlement, that you display in the latter posts and purport when boarding is a huge part of what is sucks about commercial flight these days and is something that I think should be fought and denied and challenged. I truly used to love flying and still do a ton of it for work and pleasure... but from my perspective the irony is that I don't see people that act like you as being any better than those people you disdain for overpacking. You both make the whole experience less comfortable, more of a trial, more of a battle of wills, more of a question of territoriality, and less and less about the potential enjoyment of going on a trip...
Given the number and size of carry on bags allowed in both national and international flights, there are more seats than there are spaces for the luggage allowed on most commercial aircraft. Thus, you are enforcing "rules" (here, I'll put it quotes if it will help you get your mind out of the literal) you have made up to justify removing peoples bags from the overhead bin above you if they aren't seated in your row. That "rule" is a product of your imagination. It is a fantasy "rule" that you have extrapolated from a perception that "lazy douche bags" are violating the baggage policy and as a result you have a right and privilege to remove people's luggage from the bin over your aisle. There is only logic in your argument so long as you basically ignore all possible extenuating circumstances. That may or may not be the literal case with you but its certainly implied by the tenor and text of your posts.
2 - Saying I have "no interest in any rules except those you've made up" is an unsubstantiated claim and a sweeping generalization.
Don't be ridiculous, you know I am talking about this specific situation. For someone with such a distorted take on this one subject you sure can be ridiculously literal... but only when it suits you I guess.
3 - You don't know what "circumstances" exist within my life, nor can you presume to know exactly how I might act or react to them.
Uh huh. You are proving to be a pretty good character assassin through your own statements describing how you act, so feel free to keep it up.
4 - Your "100% of your fellow travelers" claim is false.
"I really don't need anybody's approval to move a bag that most likely should have been stowed elsewhere. I have zero sympathy for lazy douche bags who board the plane with oversized bags or too many bags. In my book, they violated the baggage policy, so they can go suck a bag of dicks."
Those people certainly exist. But they aren't everyone. You are the one that has painted this as black and white so don't whine about it when folks attempt to show that there is grey. You blithely omit extenuating circumstance to fit your expectations and justify your actions. And your described prescription to this luggage affront is to damn everyone, even if its just a trickle down effect from those lazy douche bags that have forced an efficient traveller such as myself to occupy the space in the bin above you. So even if the lazy douchebags are the target of your wrath, the innocent aren't spared by your solution.
5 - Your claim that I reject rules and make up my own is fictitious, as I have not broken any rules.
Literalist. Again, you are just being myopic. You shouldn't need a "rule" to tell you be civil, but evidently you do. You are partaking in mass transit with possibly hundreds of other people but the most basic of rationalizations about why someone might need to use part of the storage bin is apparently alien logic. Regardless, my restating of slaws posts about the actual airline policies are redundant. You evidently don't want to hear about any of that.
6 - Your storage to seat ratio is a faulty premise, assuming everyone requires identical storage, plus you don't know which airlines I fly on or what their storage capacity is.
Actually, I'm willing to bet it is your assumption that is faulty here. Agree to disagree as I have no idea where one would find that sort of information. Still, you are the one that painted this as black and white, starting with your opening premise, "I would like to suggest a $1,500 fine for those caught putting their bags in other people's overhead compartments. A $3,000 fine for those who sit in the back rows but put their bags in the very front of the plane." Back in reality we understand that statements like that don't actually have to include a list of airframe manufacturers and model numbers to be understood... I understood your intent just fine. So, I've done you the courtesy of not demanding that list because its absurd and frivolous. Unless you really are interested in drafting up some sort of legal framework on an airframe by airframe basis.
7 - It's a lie to say that I've implied "ownership" of anything on a plane: That is only your highly subjective interpretation.
OK, well, if an opinion is a lie, then I guess we are all liars. In my world, "intent" is all that is needed. Your statements and how I and the majority of people reading and responding to them have interpreted them speak for themselves. Ownership is a broad enough term to easily cover the attitude and resulting actions that you attempt to validate. You feel you "own" (see, there are those quotes again) the storage bin area above you by dint of its relationship to your seat and row. Thus you are compelled to protect your presumed property by ousting trespassers. Don't make me whip out the Mirriam Webster just to satisfy your literalist bent only when it suits you. Your statements painted you into this corner, not mine.
8 - I am entitled to do or say as I see fit unless it is illegal: This is not "imaginary entitlement" it is called free will.
Its true. Being an asshole to your fellow travelers isn't illegal and its certainly an expression of free will. But entitlement is a belief that you deserve special privileges, not necessarily an action... I would argue that your removal of other passengers' baggage is the act of free will, but that act is inspired by your imagined entitlement. What better segue word to...
9 - You need to find a new word besides "entitled". Buy a thesaurus?
Probably... Nah, it just seems so appropriate. Although in writing this it occurs to me that pompous works too, and it includes aural notes like "pomp" which seems to adequately describe the flourish of your actions and "ass" which you are most certainly acting like when you perform in the way you describe. Thanks for helping me dig deep syntax coach!
------
Yep, I totally peeped your comments because I thought I remembered that I usually really liked your posts... And I was right. There is some great stuff there and a lot that I agree with. Most, in fact. But it left me wondering how a generally levelheaded (if self described abnormal) poster could be so far afield. Beyond that, its not just how vehemently I feel you are wrong here but that the horrific attitude, and yes, entitlement, that you display in the latter posts and purport when boarding is a huge part of what is sucks about commercial flight these days and is something that I think should be fought and denied and challenged. I truly used to love flying and still do a ton of it for work and pleasure... but from my perspective the irony is that I don't see people that act like you as being any better than those people you disdain for overpacking. You both make the whole experience less comfortable, more of a trial, more of a battle of wills, more of a question of territoriality, and less and less about the potential enjoyment of going on a trip...
"It is important to recognize denialism when confronted with it. The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules."
Oh, the irony... That you should have penned such a thoughtful sounding statement but clearly have no interest in any rules except those you've made up, are unwilling to accept circumstances that may exist outside of the "lazy douchebags" sample set (which apparently covers 100% of your fellow travelers... A distortion, perhaps?), reject the rules of carriage in favor of your own, and have dismissed the logic of the storage to seat ratio as an apparent inconvenient truth. You say that you accept that "rent" is the wrong word in this context but continue to act as though you do indeed have implied ownership of this space when the only reasoning you give is your imagined entitlement as justification over all else. You know what that is called, right? Because you defined it so well yourself: denialism.
Oh, the irony... That you should have penned such a thoughtful sounding statement but clearly have no interest in any rules except those you've made up, are unwilling to accept circumstances that may exist outside of the "lazy douchebags" sample set (which apparently covers 100% of your fellow travelers... A distortion, perhaps?), reject the rules of carriage in favor of your own, and have dismissed the logic of the storage to seat ratio as an apparent inconvenient truth. You say that you accept that "rent" is the wrong word in this context but continue to act as though you do indeed have implied ownership of this space when the only reasoning you give is your imagined entitlement as justification over all else. You know what that is called, right? Because you defined it so well yourself: denialism.
OK, just to summarize: any legal, civil, social, rational, logical/logistical reasons all are outweighed by your entitled, highly presumptive, arrogant enforcement of your fantasy justice system. You must be real joy of a human being if you comport yourself at all in this way in the rest of your life.
Total baiting comment, but I'll bite: you don't "own" that specific overhead space. Its a convenience but its not yours. You didn't buy it with your seat purchase. There are loads of reasons that someone doesn't even have an overhead compartment to avail themselves of (seat placement with no overhead at all, airline emergency equipment occupying what would have been your overhead compartment, flight attendant luggage, etc.). If I was stuck in the back and my luggage ended up having to be in the front simply because there wasn't room and you kept putting my luggage in the aisle, you might get booted off the plane or at least add to the already uncomfortable environment on the plane, let alone getting a punch in the face for being a jerk. In fact, I think that YOU should be fined for slowing down the boarding process and for generally being an arrogant asshole that assumes that its all black and white when it clearly is not.
