The primary British fuckup was in letting the Grand Mufti make his alliances with Hitler and then import nazi driven anti-semitism into the region, mixing it with arab nationalism. That's really the long and short of the Arab Israeli conflict since the mandate gave something like 90% of the land to the Arabs even though they walked out on talks and the whole identity of "palestinians" didn't even exist until later when his egyptian nephew made them up and started calling himself "Yasser Arafat".
Given the stated goal of the complete extermination of the entire jewish race and every Israeli citizen it's not really expected that there would be any political repercussions because, in the event Israel goes for the Samson Option, it's not really expected that there will be anyone left.
Or to put that in terms people can relate to: The conservative casualty estimates for non-nuclear options like a ground invasion were so high that every single purple heart ever awarded since World War 2 has been part of the batch made to cover the invasion of japan. It would have been another stalingrad, easily.
Muslims do not have a monopoly on that kind of behavior, but of the 30+ officially muslim nations of the Arab League not one of them is NOT openly and explicitly promoting that kind of behavior in their government sanctioned teachings, television shows, and sermons. I mean hell look at Jordan... it's probably the single least anti-Israel arab state out there and Jordan's official government sponsored sermons teach that the jews murder babies to make matza every passover.
Without this it's possible for someone to spend 80 hours working during the week and only get paid for half that much or less. When someone is following their employer's instructions and carrying out their job duties they're at work and on the clock, it's that simple. Someone who works principally in an office and travels irregularly occasionally has to deal with a special situation. Someone whose principal employment involves travelling to and from various job sites should have that travel counted as part of their work day.
The UK press is perfectly capable of lying through their teeth and getting away with it as long as they do it about the right people. I've personally seen ombudsmen and others in the appeal process flat out say they know something was wholly untrue, libellious, and that they don't give a fuck.
It will have to be. The ability to figure out what you're looking at with incomplete information is exactly what leads to optical illusions, you can't really have one without the other.
Clearly you're not in orlando very often because Altamonte's almost as much of a ghost town as Oviedo and Fashion Square while Millenia's still doing well and has high end retailers like Tiffany's, Brooks Brothers, Allen Edmonds, and Burberry.
Saying C-level guys don't need to know how their shit works is like saying the people in charge of subways and railroads don't need to know how trains work, and then wondering where the problems are coming from when you get a boss that expects two head-on trains to "move sideways" instead of colliding.
It's not an analogy to them, it's a way of justifying their broken thinking. It's like the bastard child of the bootstrap and just world fallacies, to them any response they don't like is an "excuse".
That's basically the same logic as the Just World Fallacy. If you give someone a spoon and expect them to dig like they've got a backhoe they're not a poor craftsman, they've just got really shitty tools handicapping their ability to work.
Did they suddenly forget that not everyone blurs the hell out of their text with cleartype? On my screen this allegedly wonderful font looks like it's been run through ten rounds of jpeg compression.
Can't prove standing without records the government refuses to release, can't do anything about the program collecting those records without standing. Catch-22.
It's incredible how you've managed to take a mere handful of sentences and somehow STILL twist and dissemble to such a degree that you can continue doing the thing I explicitly called out.
The point of the Charge of Irascibility is that someone's legitimate arguments are responded to with "you're angry at women"
It's like some kind of kafkaesque performance art. The whole point is that claiming someone is angry at or bitter over women is in and of itself the fallacious attack. It's like the bastard child of straw man and ad hominem. You're avoiding dealing with someone's points by trying to turn public opinion against someone using people's natural prejudices towards women and against men... which ironically wouldn't work in the first place if society was actually as anti-woman as your ideology claims it to be.
I'm not talking about the replication efforts, I'm talking about the overall system and how it leads to bad science and excessive publication in the first place.
It's a structural issue inherent in what a cynic could call the publication/tenure industrial complex. Our education and tenure systems demand ever increasing and ever more impressive publications and publication rates, and our journal systems are obsessed with the "story" of the prescient scientist who confirmed a theory conceived in a vacuum. This kind of fuckery is the natural end result.
Is it still a straw man if you're so divorced from reality as to be simply making things up from whole cloth?
My post contradicted your party line. It offended your religion in the same way evolution offends righty wingnuts. You're dismissing it because it allows you to lie more with less words and to avoid how I trapped you with your own logic and feminism's real world actions.
You're misrepresenting things as usual. The point of the Charge of Irascibility is that someone's legitimate arguments are responded to with "you're angry at women", and the response is to both address that as a disingenuous argument and point out that anger in general can be legitimate.
The problem here is that as usual you're mirror imaging. You're projecting your own internal processes and beliefs onto others. You think because you hate men that means people must hate women in return.
Slashdot Mirror
The primary British fuckup was in letting the Grand Mufti make his alliances with Hitler and then import nazi driven anti-semitism into the region, mixing it with arab nationalism. That's really the long and short of the Arab Israeli conflict since the mandate gave something like 90% of the land to the Arabs even though they walked out on talks and the whole identity of "palestinians" didn't even exist until later when his egyptian nephew made them up and started calling himself "Yasser Arafat".
Given the stated goal of the complete extermination of the entire jewish race and every Israeli citizen it's not really expected that there would be any political repercussions because, in the event Israel goes for the Samson Option, it's not really expected that there will be anyone left.
Or to put that in terms people can relate to: The conservative casualty estimates for non-nuclear options like a ground invasion were so high that every single purple heart ever awarded since World War 2 has been part of the batch made to cover the invasion of japan. It would have been another stalingrad, easily.
Muslims do not have a monopoly on that kind of behavior, but of the 30+ officially muslim nations of the Arab League not one of them is NOT openly and explicitly promoting that kind of behavior in their government sanctioned teachings, television shows, and sermons. I mean hell look at Jordan... it's probably the single least anti-Israel arab state out there and Jordan's official government sponsored sermons teach that the jews murder babies to make matza every passover.
"Fluff" and "Puffery" are one thing. Explicitly showing people doing things the device can not do is plain false advertising.
They've had his head on ice under epcot for ages.
Without this it's possible for someone to spend 80 hours working during the week and only get paid for half that much or less. When someone is following their employer's instructions and carrying out their job duties they're at work and on the clock, it's that simple. Someone who works principally in an office and travels irregularly occasionally has to deal with a special situation. Someone whose principal employment involves travelling to and from various job sites should have that travel counted as part of their work day.
The UK press is perfectly capable of lying through their teeth and getting away with it as long as they do it about the right people. I've personally seen ombudsmen and others in the appeal process flat out say they know something was wholly untrue, libellious, and that they don't give a fuck.
It will have to be. The ability to figure out what you're looking at with incomplete information is exactly what leads to optical illusions, you can't really have one without the other.
They're killing it after this final season instead of the original intended number.
Continuum's cancelled, Under the Dome is based off a book so they know exactly what to do with it, Lost Girl is cancelled...
Clearly you're not in orlando very often because Altamonte's almost as much of a ghost town as Oviedo and Fashion Square while Millenia's still doing well and has high end retailers like Tiffany's, Brooks Brothers, Allen Edmonds, and Burberry.
Saying C-level guys don't need to know how their shit works is like saying the people in charge of subways and railroads don't need to know how trains work, and then wondering where the problems are coming from when you get a boss that expects two head-on trains to "move sideways" instead of colliding.
It's not an analogy to them, it's a way of justifying their broken thinking. It's like the bastard child of the bootstrap and just world fallacies, to them any response they don't like is an "excuse".
That's basically the same logic as the Just World Fallacy. If you give someone a spoon and expect them to dig like they've got a backhoe they're not a poor craftsman, they've just got really shitty tools handicapping their ability to work.
Did they suddenly forget that not everyone blurs the hell out of their text with cleartype? On my screen this allegedly wonderful font looks like it's been run through ten rounds of jpeg compression.
Can't prove standing without records the government refuses to release, can't do anything about the program collecting those records without standing. Catch-22.
capable of repetition yet evading review is the term here.
Then they invoke national security.
It's incredible how you've managed to take a mere handful of sentences and somehow STILL twist and dissemble to such a degree that you can continue doing the thing I explicitly called out.
The point of the Charge of Irascibility is that someone's legitimate arguments are responded to with "you're angry at women"
It's like some kind of kafkaesque performance art. The whole point is that claiming someone is angry at or bitter over women is in and of itself the fallacious attack. It's like the bastard child of straw man and ad hominem. You're avoiding dealing with someone's points by trying to turn public opinion against someone using people's natural prejudices towards women and against men... which ironically wouldn't work in the first place if society was actually as anti-woman as your ideology claims it to be.
I'm not talking about the replication efforts, I'm talking about the overall system and how it leads to bad science and excessive publication in the first place.
Hitler loved dogs, should I stop volunteerng with a shelter?
It's a structural issue inherent in what a cynic could call the publication/tenure industrial complex. Our education and tenure systems demand ever increasing and ever more impressive publications and publication rates, and our journal systems are obsessed with the "story" of the prescient scientist who confirmed a theory conceived in a vacuum. This kind of fuckery is the natural end result.
Is it still a straw man if you're so divorced from reality as to be simply making things up from whole cloth?
My post contradicted your party line. It offended your religion in the same way evolution offends righty wingnuts. You're dismissing it because it allows you to lie more with less words and to avoid how I trapped you with your own logic and feminism's real world actions.
You're misrepresenting things as usual. The point of the Charge of Irascibility is that someone's legitimate arguments are responded to with "you're angry at women", and the response is to both address that as a disingenuous argument and point out that anger in general can be legitimate.
The problem here is that as usual you're mirror imaging. You're projecting your own internal processes and beliefs onto others. You think because you hate men that means people must hate women in return.