The fact that people can be fooled in this way in this particular organization. That's actually useful.
That would depend on how the facts get presented and what opinions and position accompany the facts.
The guy might be making an ass of folks, but that's harmless; people can do the same thing to cause harm.
Absolutely, this guy could have done this for personal gain and causing harm to others. Oh wait, isn't that exactly what happened?
By his actions, he's made people more-vigilant; however, they need to take this information and instill permanent policies, as that vigilance is only temporary.
Right on, CNN is now out educating people about the dangers of fishing and teaching everyone how to read mail headers and verify! Oh wait, that is not what they are doing. They are using it to bash an administration that they dislike and have bashed since election day.
I'll close similar to how I opened. The fact that this worked is not a surprise really, because we see successful fishing attempts all the time. How the information of a successful attack is used differs. The Media could have done this differently, but I expect nothing but repeated bashing from not just CNN but all US media without any public service (education).
Where I disagree is "Do you think the US or Russia are using buff men to crack in security" as sarcasm, because the answer is yes. If the targets are female, you bet they use guys who are buff to crack security. While we may not discuss a woman's promiscuity as much as men publicly, women are just as vulnerable as men in terms of exploitable sexuality and are just as likely to be promiscuous.
The number of exploitable women just happens to be smaller than men.
There is also a fundamental difference between leaving the EU because it has extended well beyond it's initial charter as sold to the people of Britain, and you claiming that Britain left because of [ad hominem]. You have not changed or argued against my initial point, or changed your position. You cherry pick on an extended argument to avoid the factual errors you made initially (or just failed to mention because it doesn't match your politics).
If you have doubts about why the UK wanted to leave the EU, see Nigel Farage's career since it was until very recently based on leaving the EU because of overreach.
Oh, I'm sure you will retort with some new ad hominem against Mr. Farage, because that is your modus operandi.
I didn't give an excuse or reason, I gave a fact. GP blamed the GOP for problems, yet the GOP was not in control of the Legislative branch of the Government and hadn't been for decades. GP's assertion is provably false because of the fact I provided. Plenty of blame to go around, so take your share if you are a Democrat.
The left the EU application process after years of debate. Amazing how none of that changes my original post though, and the reasons for countries like the UK leaving the EU.
You got me. It was a membership request that they dropped and yes I apologize for the factual error. Project Fear among other campaigns were certainly social issues, as was the additional debt they would have acquired by joining the EU. here Greenland leaving had some to do with what you claim they benefit from, which is fishing rights. Also we have the expansion of the EU into local politics including banning indigenous people's livelihood (A concern Canada has with EU also).
Of course people claim that they want to rejoin the EU, just like people in the UK started making the same claims right after the leave vote. Media has a funny way of promoting certain ideologies no matter how big or small just to push an agenda. In terms of voters, more Polish and Hungarian people want to leave the EU than people in Greenland and Iceland want to join by way of percentages. That won't get lip service though, because it fails the agenda.
Seeing as how the Democrats have controlled the House and Senate almost exclusively for 40 years from 1957, you can't blame the GOP. Citation for the lazy.
That may have more to do with a similar post being repeated over the last 10 days than asking someone for modding. But hell, I don't know.. I have not seen a mod point in forever.
Iceland, Greenland, and soon to be the UK all left the EU (UK by vote only). Algeria was a technicality first, but a technicality, as is Saint Barthelemy. There are other strong movements to leave in the Poland and Hungary, gaining support due to the social pushes by the EU. Other movements in the Netherlands, France, Italy, Sweden, and even Germany are gaining momentum.
In the case of both Greenland and Iceland, both have done very well after leaving the EU. I don't see the UK being any different, except of course that the penalties being imposed on them are much higher than other Nations that left.
You can say they are nothing alike, but that is obviously false. The economies are different, obviously, but the reasons for their departure is the same. The EU has gone well beyond it's original trade capacity and went into full on social policy. Which is why other members of the EU have been pushing back very hard against policies the EU is imposing. Poland is probably the most vocal example, but not the only example.
My posts are not really to debate the metrics of each member, former member, but to argue against GP who gave a faulty piece of ad hominem against the UK for their decision to leave. That leave vote as in the works for a very long time with a whole lot of the populace getting out. Further, the doom and gloom irrationality of GP is discounted completely by other members who _did_ leave and have not crashed and burned because of it.
I never said that Britain was a canary, I sad they left for reasons you omitted. You then, and before, toss around appeal to emotion, ad hominem, and appeals to authority because you dislike their decision.
You still, even after I pointed out, ignore the first country to leave the EU and how it has benefited that country greatly.
That the EU became much more than a "Trade Union" to help free trade between nations and became a supernational government acting well beyond the limits of economics.
I believe you have a very one sided view of who exactly screwed themselves with a wire brush. Numerous countries in the EU are taking issue with the Social policies the EU is trying to force on them.
I wonder why people who promote the EU continuously ignore the first Nation to leave, and what a positive impact it has had on them. Hint: the UK was not first, and probably won't be the last without changes in the EU body pushing social reforms on members..
Not being a hype man, pitch man, or front man does not mean that you are not out convincing people that your science is good. You and I may see more of that type person since that's what both gets ratings on TV/Radio and promotes a social message that people want you to hear, but that is a very tiny percentage of the science community.
You specifically denied the need for promotion at the onset, then changed the mark to "they are too dumb to do so", and again to "they don't need to be a celebrity type. That is moving the goal post each iteration of your position, which is still false.
All of those positions is very insulting to those of us who see the world for what it is, and especially insulting to scientists doing the work. I can find countless papers and interviews with scientists, all written using language and rhetoric which promotes their science and discoveries.
Right. Then, when every provider has to negotiate individually with every property owner where they need to install a pole or dig a trench, things will be great?/p>
YES! I really can not believe how far people's minds have gone into promoting authoritarianism!
If I own property it is MY property, and Telecom/broadband companies can't just take what they want because Government. I truly hope that you people claiming they should were not out bashing Trump for trying to take a woman's property for a parking structure, because that would make you a hypocrite.
And then when one stubborn owner in a critical location refuses to allow lines across their property, an entire neighborhood will be denied any sort of internet access at all.
We have already reserved massive amounts of land for public use. Roads, and in most cases everything 10' on either side of the road is reserved for Public Utility. (check your local zoning laws as they differ). When things go outside of that, we have courts to address issues. Lets face a basic fact that we have seen constantly in history with Governments seizing property with eminent domain. When rich man Pete says "I don't want to look at some nasty pole, go take poor guy John's property." guess what happens? We all know that John gets screwed out of the little bit he has and Pete maintains his mansion and view.
But all that's fine, because government is always bad, right?
Pretty much, yes. Government is not some entity with ethics of it's own, Government becomes the ethics of the people holding office and people they appoint to positions. The overwhelming majority of Government is beyond the control of the people today, so we can't even vote out a corrupt VA person, or vote out a corrupt EPA person, etc... This could become a new conversation in all the negative details which we can see and track today as observant citizens.
Taxes should be flat and based on percentage of income and assets. Yet in the US (I can't speak for the UK) we have over 80,000 pages of tax code to benefit the wealthy and punish everyone else who earns money. Middle class people can't afford to read through the tax codes or hire legal staffs to do so for them, only the wealthy can (and that means the very wealthy, because a millionaire can't afford to either).
Taxes are one of several reasons for the revolt in the 13 colonies and founding of a new country called the USA. The slogan "No Taxation without Representation!" should ring a bell to anyone who studied US History (sorry if you went to US public schools and missed that course). The "average" person certainly lacks representation in their State and US Federal Governments.
The Middle class already pay near 30% of their wages to Federal tax, and depending on the State another 10-20% in income tax, property tax, and sales taxes. This doesn't include taxes on gasoline, taxes on utilities, taxes on phone services, taxes on internet services, and various "fees" the State imposes on public property and services such as vehicle registration, license fees, and usage charges for roads.
If anything, the taxes on the wealthy should be higher than lower income earners. As Socrates pointed out in the Republic, that would prevent them from screwing with Government to get more simply because of what they have and ensure that the best remain productive.
Please quote when I said people don't need to know. I now rephrase to avoid the specific misinterpretation that you are drawing due to your limited understanding of the world:
Your words are pretty straight forward. If you intended a different set of words and a different message rephrase your position.
2. Everyone need not know / do everything. There is a reason division of labour has helped mankind greatly.
So no, scientists do not need to do a better job of calling out those.... They just need to publish papers and critique other papers.
Oh wait, you just did try to rephrase. Your latest post attempts to the goal post from "scientists don't need to convince people" to Scientists are too dumb to understand rhetoric and Powerpoint and we shouldn't expect them do to it well. Which is a different message but still false. Scientists _DO_ all the time. You don't have to the a front man, but you have to present both science and results people want to see in order to continue doing science. Whether it's your boss, the government, a University, or the public, someone has to write the checks.
Don't project your shortcomings on the rest of humanity, but do open your eyes and see what the rest of humanity does.
Your statements were exactly quoted from you. GO BACK AND READ! I didn't cherry pick fragments, I quoted your whole damn statement and split it based on YOUR numbers 1 and 2.
A. Are you saying scientists are experts in convincing people to do things ?
B. Are you saying scientists possess the skills required to convince people ?
Yes! See Tesla and Edison, or Flat Earth, or Nuclear Fission! Scientists DO know how to convince people and DO so all the time. They have to petition people for money, and loads of funding comes from THE PUBLIC as well as Government(s).
You don't make any sense after that. _You_ said that scientists don't need to present information because people don't need to know (division of labor and all that). I said that they did need to present information and gave justification (my money is mine and you have no right to steal it).
Either, you lack the skills required to debate in the given language (English) or you are a complete moron.
1. Scientists (especially those not in cognitive sciences) don't know how to convince people to do things. Even those that do know how to, need not be skilled in doing it - like the aspects of thinking on one's feet, acting, emoting, judging the audience's emotions and reacting quickly to them etc.
False, and even a cursory study of history proves you false. "Science" gets funding to come to certain conclusions all the time. "Scientists" write extensively on the dilemmas they face when their morality gets challenged by the "Science" they are paid to do. "Scientists" are not the majority of people out there selling political agendas with said "Science". Examples are so easy to find that any citation request will be met with riducule!
2. Everyone need not know / do everything. There is a reason division of labour has helped mankind greatly.
So no, scientists do not need to do a better job of calling out those.... They just need to publish papers and critique other papers.
When the solution presented to the masses is "GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY" you bet your ass we need to know why. That has nothing to do with a division of labor, it has everything to do with Individual Liberty and Natural Law.
Not even a good try comrade. You get -10 additional rations.
I don't know anyone that would not admit that pollution is a problem. Plastic waste from _all_over making up huge masses in the oceans is an easy example. TFA and AGW proponents both have the same problem, which is complaining about the wrong stuff. Nitrogen is fertilizer for plants, and CO2 is converted by plants into O2. If those two things are really a concern, simply allowing plants to grow is the best possible answer. Do away with Nitrogen or CO2, and all the plants die. With them, goes the humans and everything else.
We don't see any reasonable presentation of the problems, and the solutions presented are to simply get rich scams for the wealthy as they spread around the wealth of the middle class to make all the peons poor. Win-win for those few, and a big middle finger to the rest of humanity.
Looking at your list, amazing that you put leaded gasoline and ozone into your list. CFCs were banned in the 70s because it was found to be harmful, and SCIENCE was able to prove it. Lead is harmful to humans and causes all kinds of problems both physically and mentally. Again, SCIENCE was able to prove it. We not only banned leaded gasoline, but leaded paint, lead pencils, and lead plumbing. People overall didn't have any problem with the solution, which was an outright ban.
These claims of CO2 BAD! and Nitrogen BAD! are false claims, easily provable by SCIENCE. Get the claim right, and people would listen. Get the right solution, and people will listen. "GIVE DE GUBMT MONEY!" is NOT a solution!
If you give reason to question, I question. What's the matter alleged Marine, you fear inquiry into your alleged service?
Then you question the definition of communal shower, like there is any way that is up for grabs. It is a room with shower heads scattered around and no curtains. Are you such a special snowflake that having shower stalls together is "communal showering?" Right.
No! I stated exactly what your portrayal of a communal shower was and gave a more accurate portrayal. Amazing how you re-state your original portrayal to match mine, and then sling ad hominem around.
If you were a Marine, you were what we called a sandbag.
Trump has little to do with Twitter's growth or decline, or lack of either. Twitter as you state is tainted, but not just by celebrity types. Censorship has probably as much to do with the lack of growth, and the surge of competing products vowing not to censor.
Twitter seems to be a big deal with media agencies who watch each others tweets, celebrities that follow each other, bots who don't care who they spam, and bot makers who think people are still actively joining in. Yeah yeah, some people follow that stuff too, but not enough for all the hype it gets.
Trump is only mentioned for the Trump vs anti-Trump posts that seem to come with anything these days.
The late 80s was the collapse of Detroit and the Automotive companies, which we were the last to have lifelong tenure as long as people wanted it and didn't really, really really F'up. The late 70s early 80s was when steel collapsed with the same. That is between 30 and 40 for those of us who can perform basic math tasks. Yeah, maybe the median for the Country started dropping in the late 60s early 70s but if you restrict to those dates you would be called wrong because of steel and automotives.
In other words, people like you would bitch no matter what was posted.
Slashdot Mirror
s/fishing/phishing/ good grief, sometimes multitasking is really bad.
The fact that people can be fooled in this way in this particular organization. That's actually useful.
That would depend on how the facts get presented and what opinions and position accompany the facts.
The guy might be making an ass of folks, but that's harmless; people can do the same thing to cause harm.
Absolutely, this guy could have done this for personal gain and causing harm to others. Oh wait, isn't that exactly what happened?
By his actions, he's made people more-vigilant; however, they need to take this information and instill permanent policies, as that vigilance is only temporary.
Right on, CNN is now out educating people about the dangers of fishing and teaching everyone how to read mail headers and verify! Oh wait, that is not what they are doing. They are using it to bash an administration that they dislike and have bashed since election day.
I'll close similar to how I opened. The fact that this worked is not a surprise really, because we see successful fishing attempts all the time. How the information of a successful attack is used differs. The Media could have done this differently, but I expect nothing but repeated bashing from not just CNN but all US media without any public service (education).
Where I disagree is "Do you think the US or Russia are using buff men to crack in security" as sarcasm, because the answer is yes. If the targets are female, you bet they use guys who are buff to crack security. While we may not discuss a woman's promiscuity as much as men publicly, women are just as vulnerable as men in terms of exploitable sexuality and are just as likely to be promiscuous.
The number of exploitable women just happens to be smaller than men.
There is also a fundamental difference between leaving the EU because it has extended well beyond it's initial charter as sold to the people of Britain, and you claiming that Britain left because of [ad hominem]. You have not changed or argued against my initial point, or changed your position. You cherry pick on an extended argument to avoid the factual errors you made initially (or just failed to mention because it doesn't match your politics).
If you have doubts about why the UK wanted to leave the EU, see Nigel Farage's career since it was until very recently based on leaving the EU because of overreach.
Oh, I'm sure you will retort with some new ad hominem against Mr. Farage, because that is your modus operandi.
I didn't give an excuse or reason, I gave a fact. GP blamed the GOP for problems, yet the GOP was not in control of the Legislative branch of the Government and hadn't been for decades. GP's assertion is provably false because of the fact I provided. Plenty of blame to go around, so take your share if you are a Democrat.
The left the EU application process after years of debate. Amazing how none of that changes my original post though, and the reasons for countries like the UK leaving the EU.
You got me. It was a membership request that they dropped and yes I apologize for the factual error. Project Fear among other campaigns were certainly social issues, as was the additional debt they would have acquired by joining the EU. here Greenland leaving had some to do with what you claim they benefit from, which is fishing rights. Also we have the expansion of the EU into local politics including banning indigenous people's livelihood (A concern Canada has with EU also).
Of course people claim that they want to rejoin the EU, just like people in the UK started making the same claims right after the leave vote. Media has a funny way of promoting certain ideologies no matter how big or small just to push an agenda. In terms of voters, more Polish and Hungarian people want to leave the EU than people in Greenland and Iceland want to join by way of percentages. That won't get lip service though, because it fails the agenda.
Seeing as how the Democrats have controlled the House and Senate almost exclusively for 40 years from 1957, you can't blame the GOP. Citation for the lazy.
That may have more to do with a similar post being repeated over the last 10 days than asking someone for modding. But hell, I don't know.. I have not seen a mod point in forever.
Iceland, Greenland, and soon to be the UK all left the EU (UK by vote only). Algeria was a technicality first, but a technicality, as is Saint Barthelemy. There are other strong movements to leave in the Poland and Hungary, gaining support due to the social pushes by the EU. Other movements in the Netherlands, France, Italy, Sweden, and even Germany are gaining momentum.
The rating system maxes at 5 you insensitive clod!
In the case of both Greenland and Iceland, both have done very well after leaving the EU. I don't see the UK being any different, except of course that the penalties being imposed on them are much higher than other Nations that left.
You can say they are nothing alike, but that is obviously false. The economies are different, obviously, but the reasons for their departure is the same. The EU has gone well beyond it's original trade capacity and went into full on social policy. Which is why other members of the EU have been pushing back very hard against policies the EU is imposing. Poland is probably the most vocal example, but not the only example.
My posts are not really to debate the metrics of each member, former member, but to argue against GP who gave a faulty piece of ad hominem against the UK for their decision to leave. That leave vote as in the works for a very long time with a whole lot of the populace getting out. Further, the doom and gloom irrationality of GP is discounted completely by other members who _did_ leave and have not crashed and burned because of it.
I never said that Britain was a canary, I sad they left for reasons you omitted. You then, and before, toss around appeal to emotion, ad hominem, and appeals to authority because you dislike their decision.
You still, even after I pointed out, ignore the first country to leave the EU and how it has benefited that country greatly.
That the EU became much more than a "Trade Union" to help free trade between nations and became a supernational government acting well beyond the limits of economics.
I believe you have a very one sided view of who exactly screwed themselves with a wire brush. Numerous countries in the EU are taking issue with the Social policies the EU is trying to force on them.
I wonder why people who promote the EU continuously ignore the first Nation to leave, and what a positive impact it has had on them. Hint: the UK was not first, and probably won't be the last without changes in the EU body pushing social reforms on members..
Not being a hype man, pitch man, or front man does not mean that you are not out convincing people that your science is good. You and I may see more of that type person since that's what both gets ratings on TV/Radio and promotes a social message that people want you to hear, but that is a very tiny percentage of the science community.
You specifically denied the need for promotion at the onset, then changed the mark to "they are too dumb to do so", and again to "they don't need to be a celebrity type. That is moving the goal post each iteration of your position, which is still false.
All of those positions is very insulting to those of us who see the world for what it is, and especially insulting to scientists doing the work. I can find countless papers and interviews with scientists, all written using language and rhetoric which promotes their science and discoveries.
Right. Then, when every provider has to negotiate individually with every property owner where they need to install a pole or dig a trench, things will be great?/p>
YES! I really can not believe how far people's minds have gone into promoting authoritarianism!
If I own property it is MY property, and Telecom/broadband companies can't just take what they want because Government. I truly hope that you people claiming they should were not out bashing Trump for trying to take a woman's property for a parking structure, because that would make you a hypocrite.
And then when one stubborn owner in a critical location refuses to allow lines across their property, an entire neighborhood will be denied any sort of internet access at all.
We have already reserved massive amounts of land for public use. Roads, and in most cases everything 10' on either side of the road is reserved for Public Utility. (check your local zoning laws as they differ). When things go outside of that, we have courts to address issues. Lets face a basic fact that we have seen constantly in history with Governments seizing property with eminent domain. When rich man Pete says "I don't want to look at some nasty pole, go take poor guy John's property." guess what happens? We all know that John gets screwed out of the little bit he has and Pete maintains his mansion and view.
But all that's fine, because government is always bad, right?
Pretty much, yes. Government is not some entity with ethics of it's own, Government becomes the ethics of the people holding office and people they appoint to positions. The overwhelming majority of Government is beyond the control of the people today, so we can't even vote out a corrupt VA person, or vote out a corrupt EPA person, etc... This could become a new conversation in all the negative details which we can see and track today as observant citizens.
Taxes should be flat and based on percentage of income and assets. Yet in the US (I can't speak for the UK) we have over 80,000 pages of tax code to benefit the wealthy and punish everyone else who earns money. Middle class people can't afford to read through the tax codes or hire legal staffs to do so for them, only the wealthy can (and that means the very wealthy, because a millionaire can't afford to either).
Taxes are one of several reasons for the revolt in the 13 colonies and founding of a new country called the USA. The slogan "No Taxation without Representation!" should ring a bell to anyone who studied US History (sorry if you went to US public schools and missed that course). The "average" person certainly lacks representation in their State and US Federal Governments.
The Middle class already pay near 30% of their wages to Federal tax, and depending on the State another 10-20% in income tax, property tax, and sales taxes. This doesn't include taxes on gasoline, taxes on utilities, taxes on phone services, taxes on internet services, and various "fees" the State imposes on public property and services such as vehicle registration, license fees, and usage charges for roads.
If anything, the taxes on the wealthy should be higher than lower income earners. As Socrates pointed out in the Republic, that would prevent them from screwing with Government to get more simply because of what they have and ensure that the best remain productive.
Please quote when I said people don't need to know. I now rephrase to avoid the specific misinterpretation that you are drawing due to your limited understanding of the world :
Your words are pretty straight forward. If you intended a different set of words and a different message rephrase your position.
2. Everyone need not know / do everything. There is a reason division of labour has helped mankind greatly.
So no, scientists do not need to do a better job of calling out those .... They just need to publish papers and critique other papers.
Oh wait, you just did try to rephrase. Your latest post attempts to the goal post from "scientists don't need to convince people" to Scientists are too dumb to understand rhetoric and Powerpoint and we shouldn't expect them do to it well. Which is a different message but still false. Scientists _DO_ all the time. You don't have to the a front man, but you have to present both science and results people want to see in order to continue doing science. Whether it's your boss, the government, a University, or the public, someone has to write the checks.
Don't project your shortcomings on the rest of humanity, but do open your eyes and see what the rest of humanity does.
Your statements were exactly quoted from you. GO BACK AND READ! I didn't cherry pick fragments, I quoted your whole damn statement and split it based on YOUR numbers 1 and 2.
A. Are you saying scientists are experts in convincing people to do things ?
B. Are you saying scientists possess the skills required to convince people ?
Yes! See Tesla and Edison, or Flat Earth, or Nuclear Fission! Scientists DO know how to convince people and DO so all the time. They have to petition people for money, and loads of funding comes from THE PUBLIC as well as Government(s).
You don't make any sense after that. _You_ said that scientists don't need to present information because people don't need to know (division of labor and all that). I said that they did need to present information and gave justification (my money is mine and you have no right to steal it).
Either, you lack the skills required to debate in the given language (English) or you are a complete moron.
1. Scientists (especially those not in cognitive sciences) don't know how to convince people to do things. Even those that do know how to, need not be skilled in doing it - like the aspects of thinking on one's feet, acting, emoting, judging the audience's emotions and reacting quickly to them etc.
False, and even a cursory study of history proves you false. "Science" gets funding to come to certain conclusions all the time. "Scientists" write extensively on the dilemmas they face when their morality gets challenged by the "Science" they are paid to do. "Scientists" are not the majority of people out there selling political agendas with said "Science". Examples are so easy to find that any citation request will be met with riducule!
2. Everyone need not know / do everything. There is a reason division of labour has helped mankind greatly.
So no, scientists do not need to do a better job of calling out those .... They just need to publish papers and critique other papers.
When the solution presented to the masses is "GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY" you bet your ass we need to know why. That has nothing to do with a division of labor, it has everything to do with Individual Liberty and Natural Law.
Not even a good try comrade. You get -10 additional rations.
I don't know anyone that would not admit that pollution is a problem. Plastic waste from _all_over making up huge masses in the oceans is an easy example. TFA and AGW proponents both have the same problem, which is complaining about the wrong stuff. Nitrogen is fertilizer for plants, and CO2 is converted by plants into O2. If those two things are really a concern, simply allowing plants to grow is the best possible answer. Do away with Nitrogen or CO2, and all the plants die. With them, goes the humans and everything else.
We don't see any reasonable presentation of the problems, and the solutions presented are to simply get rich scams for the wealthy as they spread around the wealth of the middle class to make all the peons poor. Win-win for those few, and a big middle finger to the rest of humanity.
Looking at your list, amazing that you put leaded gasoline and ozone into your list. CFCs were banned in the 70s because it was found to be harmful, and SCIENCE was able to prove it. Lead is harmful to humans and causes all kinds of problems both physically and mentally. Again, SCIENCE was able to prove it. We not only banned leaded gasoline, but leaded paint, lead pencils, and lead plumbing. People overall didn't have any problem with the solution, which was an outright ban.
These claims of CO2 BAD! and Nitrogen BAD! are false claims, easily provable by SCIENCE. Get the claim right, and people would listen. Get the right solution, and people will listen. "GIVE DE GUBMT MONEY!" is NOT a solution!
42
Seriously? You question my service? Classy.
If you give reason to question, I question. What's the matter alleged Marine, you fear inquiry into your alleged service?
Then you question the definition of communal shower, like there is any way that is up for grabs. It is a room with shower heads scattered around and no curtains. Are you such a special snowflake that having shower stalls together is "communal showering?" Right.
No! I stated exactly what your portrayal of a communal shower was and gave a more accurate portrayal. Amazing how you re-state your original portrayal to match mine, and then sling ad hominem around.
If you were a Marine, you were what we called a sandbag.
Trump has little to do with Twitter's growth or decline, or lack of either. Twitter as you state is tainted, but not just by celebrity types. Censorship has probably as much to do with the lack of growth, and the surge of competing products vowing not to censor.
Twitter seems to be a big deal with media agencies who watch each others tweets, celebrities that follow each other, bots who don't care who they spam, and bot makers who think people are still actively joining in. Yeah yeah, some people follow that stuff too, but not enough for all the hype it gets.
Trump is only mentioned for the Trump vs anti-Trump posts that seem to come with anything these days.
The late 80s was the collapse of Detroit and the Automotive companies, which we were the last to have lifelong tenure as long as people wanted it and didn't really, really really F'up. The late 70s early 80s was when steel collapsed with the same. That is between 30 and 40 for those of us who can perform basic math tasks. Yeah, maybe the median for the Country started dropping in the late 60s early 70s but if you restrict to those dates you would be called wrong because of steel and automotives.
In other words, people like you would bitch no matter what was posted.