Tense. Very tense.

So, you admit it!

Wast= was in the past, the second person singular form of the past tense of "be":
thou wast (= you were)

…and you think yourself a MENSA member! 🤤

Too tense

Yes the manner she's complaining is there to draw attention and hopefully embarrassed the person. As I said above this, she's not complaining about something happening, she's just complaining that the person exists.


On your second question, I was taking a pee when my kid was in and let me be brutally honest here. I thought she was still infantile enough to file things like this into 'I don't remember ' but she piped up very articulately "daddy, let me see your body" and I swear on my grandfather's grave it's the only time I've felt genuinely self conscious around my kid. I shut the curtain to the tub and explained to her that there are boys and girls, etc. But...and don't get me wrong, I'm not wanting to wander around just naked all the time, however, I see my wife on occasion interact with her like that and I wish I didn't have to feel like worried that my own kid is going to see me naked. If she does it's not the end of the world, but I guess when I'm not doing anything wrong - I wish I didn't have to worry about it. Yes.

I know different cultures have more nuanced views of nudity. Not all nudity is inherently sexual.

Moreover, the woman never even made it clear that they saw anything. She never says they saw it

Double checking

No, she says a lot of variations of "I see" or "he has" those verb forms fit with the other hypotheticals that she lays out to make them sound as close to something happening as possible.


Note - she doesn't say "I saw" or "(s)he showed" or "(s)he had" the way one would if an event happened in the past. She's talking in present tense.

But let's assume someone saw something in a flash of a towel to garment transition. For sayings sake. Yeah... I don't think it's too much to ask that parents sit their kids down and explain "well, you know Elton John? That guy is WAYYYY more manly than these people ever want to be. These people hate manly things so much they have decided they want to be women." Or something like that.

@StukaFox, funnily enough today I was thinking of a joke I used to tell back in the day. I couldn't find just now in a 2 minute search making it less likely you've heard it before, so I'll write out a quick version. It's not the funniest or the dirtiest, but it's fun to tell.

So a guy's looking to kill himself and fortuitously comes across a sign saying 'for an interesting death enquire within.' This being a joke he decides he has to give it a go.

Inside is an absolutely huuuuge naked woman. She first instructs him to put his belt on her. He struggles, but eventually manages. "Now," she says "pull it tighter until I'm thin." With every ounce of strength and leverage he can muster he gets the belt to the last notch. Struggling for breath she says "Now eat my pussy". He's starting to suspect a scam, but he goes for it anyway. "Harder!" she gasps, grinding against him. He pushes back against her as hard as he can. "harder! HARDER!" He's pushing so hard he's struggling to breathe. He suspects she's just trying to smother him with her pussy when he feels her starting to orgasm. He pushes harder still. Her muscles tense and pulse until suddenly the belt can't take it any more - POP! Ssccchhhhlllup! And he was never seen again.

----

Bonus clean joke I saw when I searched for the one above: Don't challenge Death to a pillow fight unless you're prepared to face the reaper cushions.

Riveting. Tense. Spock was great.

I didn't call you dumb. I warned you that if you were to do something (future tense possibility) then the result would be that you were being dumb.

Do you get how that works? There are multiple future possibilities, I don't want one to happen so I warn against it. This is not a difficult concept so I am at a loss as to why you don't understand it.

There was nothing in your previous correspondence to suggest that it would be a statement referring to a past tense behavior. You unfortunately assumed it to be referring to past tense behaviour. If you had doubt as to what I was referring to you could have just asked. I.e. if you read it and went "does he mean past tense or future tense? There isn't any past tense behaviour he could be referring to, so logically it must be future tense. I'm still confused though", you could have just asked which it was.

I believe any restrictions on the 2A have been justified by the supreme court. So they believe it was within the scope of what the founders intended. That is how.

"Hazard a guess" and "assume" are two different things.

Hazard a guess means to admit you don't know what is true but that with the given information you will gamble on an outcome (with full disclosure that it could be wrong).

Assume means to presume something is true, without any proof that it is.

You're welcome.

good video but a rather important thing he missed is, that many governments DO pay brasil to maintain the rainforest-

"Norway has followed Germany in suspending donations to the Brazilian government’s Amazon Fund after a surge in deforestation in the South American rainforest. The move has triggered a caustic attack from the country’s rightwing president.


Bolsonaro rejects 'Captain Chainsaw' label as data shows deforestation 'exploded'
Read more
Jair Bolsonaro, whose move to meddle in the environmental organisation’s governance led to Norway’s decision, reacted by suggesting that Europe was not in a position to lecture his administration.

“Isn’t Norway that country that kills whales up there in the north pole?”, the Brazilian president said. “Take that money and help Angela Merkel reforest Germany.”

After weeks of tense negotiations with Norway and Germany, the Bolsonaro government unilaterally closed the Amazon Fund’s steering committee on Thursday. The fund has been central to international efforts to curb deforestation although its impact is contested.

Brazil’s environment minister, Ricardo Salles, said the Amazon Fund had been suspended while its rules were under discussion.

In response, Ola Elvestuen, his Norwegian counterpart, said an expected payment of about $33.27m (£27.36m) would not take place as Brazil had, in effect, broken the terms of its deal. Norway has been the fund’s biggest donor, and has given about $1.2bn (£985m) over the past decade.

“He cannot do that without Norway and Germany’s agreement,” Elvestuen said. “What Brazil has shown is that it no longer wants to stop deforestation.”

This week Berlin had said it would withhold an expected payment of about $39m. Norway and Germany questioned an initial proposal from the Brazilian government for the fund’s steering committee to be reduced in size, and had warned against any weakening of the structures of the fund.

Grave concerns about the rate of deforestation since Bolsonaro took power have been repeatedly voiced by the Norwegian government and others.

According to Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, the government agency that monitors deforestation, the rate increased by 278% in the year to July, resulting in the destruction of about 870 square miles."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/16/norway-halts-amazon-fund-donation-dispute-brazil-deforestation-jair-bolsonaro


while I do agree that for 3rd world ex colonies it is extremely tiresome to hear lectures about ecology from the US and Europe, who tore up the planet to achieve their status and continue to consume far more than 3rd world people do, Bolsonaro is dead wrong here and sadly it has to be said this is what the democracy and capitalism produce: shortsighted win-now, defer the costs decisions.

@bcglorf

Use is not evidence of efficacy. Ask the homeopathic medicine industry about that.


I'd like to see some solid evidence of torture producing the results you'd want to see. A closely guarded secret revealed only after X amount of hours on the rack or under the water board.

From what I've read, universally, people who are tortured see their torturers in a rapidly increasing negative light. What could your worst enemy do to get you to betray a good friend? What if you began to harbor feelings that were even more I tense hatred for your worst enemy and they wanted you to betray your best friend? Would you be more likely to work with them then ?

I think the premise itself is flawed when it comes to torture, and more importantly the evidence is on my side.

And Douglas Adams pointed out that our inability to create time travel is, in part, due to the tenses it would create.

I remember realising how screwed up English tenses are when I told a Hungarian friend that I "would have had to have had" done something beforehand. She just glared at me.

What "facts"? Your opinion? That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Edit: Facts that Trump said aren't facts? That's the best indicator today that they are factual.
I'll take the dozens of convictions and guilty pleas based on those facts as proof enough they are true and well vetted. People don't agree to years in prison based on nonsense that's been proven false....especially not people with money like these people have.

As the exalted leaders #1 choice for (mis)information that becomes policy and platform for the right, and part of the right wing triad ministry of truth, you simply can't leave Jones out of any media discussion, particularly one where someone paints the BBC as having an (anti?)American political bias, and not just a bias for reality.

Yes, it's all fine and dandy. Any investigation of an investigation by the subject being investigated (or their proxies) is patently ridiculous and a clear political ploy to satiate your need for corroboration of what you want to believe, fact based or not. They knew they couldn't write the investigation's findings, nor could they accept the truth being made public, the only option left is to discredit the investigation, something they've been trying since before it began. I find it incredibly sad that so many are so thoroughly indoctrinated that you buy that obvious, self serving ploy to discredit the entire FBI and intelligence community in favor of a consummate narcissist and convicted fraud's self serving and baseless stated opinion about himself.
I guess you believe mob bosses who claimed they were framed and are just legitimate businessmen too, tapes and other evidence of them planning crimes and committing them are nothing in the face of their denials, right?

Yes...yes he did say that about central American immigrants....are you just parsing the fact that he didn't specifically say EACH AND EVERY ONE IS A RAPIST, while not acknowledging what he did say...."They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."? Strictly read, he's saying they're all rapists, but some are good people anyway....just like some Neo Nazis are good people in his opinion. You're attempts at rectifying oldthink (rewriting history) only work with people who have no memories. I watched him say it and I can remember yesterday without big brother telling me what to remember.

I can't dive into your paranoia to decipher what you're feeling. If you can't hear "accosted" and gather they likely arrested her aggressively and instead read that as some hidden agenda to.....well, you didn't articulate what the motive would be...., perhaps reading comprehension isn't a strong suit.

ac·cost. /əˈkôst,əˈkäst/ verb
past tense: accosted; past participle: accosted
approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.

I disagree with your characterizations. Considering the constant vitriolic, dangerous, demonizing, now blatant terroristic threats from Trump directed at all non right wing propaganda outlets that won't spread his propaganda and stroke his ego, amplified through his right wing minitrue and interpreted by his base that he's trained to hear his dog whistling, and in the face of the same, they display a mature, composed, restrained, unbiased, and inhumanly patient character, including the three you listed.
Yes, they are mature and reasonable adults under constant attack from a serial con man/cult leader and constant threats against their lives, not one Fox host, Jones host, or OAN host is 1/4 as mature, honest, or unbiased as the worst you can mention from CNN.....and no, CNN is not my preferred news source, but they are infinitely better than anything the evil trinity of right wing propaganda produces, including the totally dishonest smear campaign against all news organizations that you are part of now, willingly or not.

That's what the ministry of truth does. They get you to repeat their lies until you believe them enough to be the enemy of anyone still believing fact and reality. It clearly worked.

Btw, still waiting on the names of CNN reporters who have gone on the campaign to stump for the left, like Fox hosts did on the right. You insanely claim CNN is more biased than Fox, you should be able to name at least 4 off hand then.

The simple point is that as soon as we realized the capability of the Zero we easily and quickly designed a plane(s) capable of combating it.

The Yak-3 didn't enter the war until 1944, at which point the war had massively turned in Western Theatre. For the bulk of the conflict, they were using the Yak-1.

The Mig 25 and Mig 31 are both interceptors, they are designed to fire from distance and evade. The Su 35 is designed for Air Superiority. We have held the edge in our capabilities for years compared to them.

Every expert I know of is skeptical of China's claimed Railgun weapon. As to why they would bother mounting it and making claims, why not? It is brinkmanship, making us think they have more capabilities than they do.

The laser rifle is a crowd deterrent weapon. It would serve almost no purpose in infantry combat because it cannot kill. Yes, it can burn things and cause pain, but that is all. Again, this was claimed to be far more effective than experts think during our diplomatic arguments over China's use of blinding lasers on aircraft. We have no hard evidence of it's capability.

Yes, Russia could sell such a missile to our enemies versus using it directly against us. The problem is that as soon as they do so, the genie is out of the bottle. It will be reverse engineered quickly and could be USED AGAINST THEM. No country gives or sells away it's absolute top level weaponry except to it's most trusted allies. Allies which, for all intents and purposes, know that using such a weapon against another nation state risks full out retaliation against not only them but the country that sold it to them.

Our carriers are excellent mobile platforms, but they are not our only way of mounting air strikes. If we were somehow in a conventional war situation, we could easily fly over and base our aircraft in allied countries for combat. Most of our nuclear capable aircraft are not carrier launched anyway. Even if somehow all of our carriers were taken out and somehow our SAC bombers were destroyed as well, we would still have more than enough land launched and submarine launched nuclear warheads to easily blanket our enemies.

My points remain:

1. It is in the greatest interest of our enemies to boast about weapon capabilities even if they are not effective yet.

2. Most well regarded experts consider many of these weapons to either be still in the research stage, early production stage (IE not available for years), or they are wildly over hyped.

3. There is no logical reason for our enemies to use these weapons or proliferate them to their closest allies unless the weapons can prevent a nuclear response. Merely mentioning a weapon that would have such a capability creates a situation that could lead to nuclear war, like SDI did. I don't know if you recall, but I do clearly, how massively freaked out the Soviets got over our SDI claims. For two years they started threatening nuclear war as being inevitable if we continued on the path we were, all the while aggressively trying to destabilize our relations with our allies. 1983 to 1985 was pretty fucking tense, not Cuban missile crisis level maybe, but damn scary. Putin has acted similarly over our attempts to set up a missile barrier in former satellite states of Russia, although we still haven't got to the SHTF level of the early 80's.

Tense action. *promote *quality

*quality *promote

Hard swallow. Too tense. Way tense.