Why ??!!...The whinging,moaning,complaining,ranting,letting off steam thread !!

1232426282993

Comments

  • Posts: 7,507
    mtm wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    It is true that CNN is not the best media company in the world. I strongly react however when people claim they are "just as bad" as Fox News. It's not even close.

    Well, all the more reason why CNN should try to elevate itself by bringing news rather than opinions. If Fox News leans too far to one side, CNN shouldn't respond by "counter-leaning" to the other side. Let Fox make fools of themselves; meanwhile, bring the news, cold and objectively. I accept a little "opinionating" but as @mtm said, CNN sometimes brings BIG ALARMING NEWS FACTS! that turn out next to nothing. I equate some of their reporting to how football matches are being covered: people scream like maniacs while not a lot is going on... ;-)

    They are definitely too tabloid and sensationalistic. However I do think the "objective" reaction to Trump's presidency is to be condemnatory...

    I think it was very refreshing after the election when pretty much all news networks decided enough was enough and could no longer dance around the fact that Trump was simply saying stuff that was unfounded. Previously they've always said stuff like "he repeated his assertion" etc. which passed no judgement, but when he's saying such huge outright lies I think it was good to report them as such and not try to find a way to avoid it.
    But editorialising shouldn't really come as a replacement for reporting, which is what CNN seems to be. Crucially I've seen not very much in the way of impressive reporting from them, and they barely even interview any pundits, they just interview themselves. The election coverage was incredibly insular and repetitive in the way UK election coverage never is: you'd think they didn't have any staff outside their one small studio.

    Personally I think Jon Sopel on the BBC hits the perfect note of reporting what's going on and framing that with context and not sensationalising it. I've been listening to him and Emily Matlis on the Americast too, and that's very good.

    Yes, I agree their coverage is in many cases quite bad. My point is that I do not agree they are particularly partisan. In the US one party has drifted so far to the right that they are flirting with right wing extremism and they have absolutely no shame about using every dirty trick, both in and outside the book, to push their absurdly conservative agenda. "Objectivism" should not be adjustet to the right accordingly.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,253
    mtm wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    How can it be in a country that's supposed to be free, you can claim anything without reporcussions?

    Because it's free..? What do you mean?
    I think he was pretty clearly referring to slander, as in maliciously making false statements about someone that harms that person's reputation. Slander can put someone in a corner, placing restriction on how that person can go about his/her life. That's not a "free" lifestyle at all.

    So people shouldn't be free to speak or they should?

    Bear in mind I do think all of this talk of 'free speech' recently is nonsense- you can't be free to say anything, and even if you do it doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with you, which is what some of these people seem to think it does.

    They should, obviously, as long as it's not infringing anybody else's freedom, and that's why libel and slander are illegal. The thing with the USA is though you never see any cases made. All those serious accusations of pedophelia i.e. go unpunished. No proof is asked. With the end result hundreds of thousands of people think it's actually true and start to act that way. What Donny jr. did above would never come through in any other Western country. For a reason.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2021 Posts: 16,382
    mtm wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    How can it be in a country that's supposed to be free, you can claim anything without reporcussions?

    Because it's free..? What do you mean?
    I think he was pretty clearly referring to slander, as in maliciously making false statements about someone that harms that person's reputation. Slander can put someone in a corner, placing restriction on how that person can go about his/her life. That's not a "free" lifestyle at all.

    So people shouldn't be free to speak or they should?

    Bear in mind I do think all of this talk of 'free speech' recently is nonsense- you can't be free to say anything, and even if you do it doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with you, which is what some of these people seem to think it does.

    They should, obviously, as long as it's not infringing anybody else's freedom, and that's why libel and slander are illegal. The thing with the USA is though you never see any cases made. All those serious accusations of pedophelia i.e. go unpunished. No proof is asked. With the end result hundreds of thousands of people think it's actually true and start to act that way. What Donny jr. did above would never come through in any other Western country. For a reason.

    So when you say the USA is "supposed to be free" you actually mean it's too free?

    Also:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/giuliani-sued-election-fraud-trump-b1792216.html
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,253
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    How can it be in a country that's supposed to be free, you can claim anything without reporcussions?

    Because it's free..? What do you mean?
    I think he was pretty clearly referring to slander, as in maliciously making false statements about someone that harms that person's reputation. Slander can put someone in a corner, placing restriction on how that person can go about his/her life. That's not a "free" lifestyle at all.

    So people shouldn't be free to speak or they should?

    Bear in mind I do think all of this talk of 'free speech' recently is nonsense- you can't be free to say anything, and even if you do it doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with you, which is what some of these people seem to think it does.

    They should, obviously, as long as it's not infringing anybody else's freedom, and that's why libel and slander are illegal. The thing with the USA is though you never see any cases made. All those serious accusations of pedophelia i.e. go unpunished. No proof is asked. With the end result hundreds of thousands of people think it's actually true and start to act that way. What Donny jr. did above would never come through in any other Western country. For a reason.

    So when you say the USA is "supposed to be free" you actually mean it's too free?

    Also:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/giuliani-sued-election-fraud-trump-b1792216.html

    I'm not sure there's something like 'too free'. As said, as soon as you cross a line and limit someone else's freedom, you're making the country less free. The same goes for gun laws by the way. As soon as I pull a loaded gun to someone's head, that person's freedom is severely limited. Again, the rest of the Western world seems to understand this except for the USA. So no, it's not beeing 'too' free. It's beeing limitless.

    I'm glad Giuliani is beeing sued. It's about time, they should've done that as soon as his first tweet/public statement came out. But better late than never.
  • Posts: 2,917


    Little did this professor know how far his advice would be taken. Today spoken English consists of the F-word, the S-word, and some weak connective tissue.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    Revelator wrote: »


    Little did this professor know how far his advice would be taken. Today spoken English consists of the F-word, the S-word, and some weak connective tissue.

    lol, maybe we should bring back Zounds.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    How can it be in a country that's supposed to be free, you can claim anything without reporcussions?

    Because it's free..? What do you mean?
    I think he was pretty clearly referring to slander, as in maliciously making false statements about someone that harms that person's reputation. Slander can put someone in a corner, placing restriction on how that person can go about his/her life. That's not a "free" lifestyle at all.

    So people shouldn't be free to speak or they should?

    Bear in mind I do think all of this talk of 'free speech' recently is nonsense- you can't be free to say anything, and even if you do it doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with you, which is what some of these people seem to think it does.

    They should, obviously, as long as it's not infringing anybody else's freedom, and that's why libel and slander are illegal. The thing with the USA is though you never see any cases made. All those serious accusations of pedophelia i.e. go unpunished. No proof is asked. With the end result hundreds of thousands of people think it's actually true and start to act that way. What Donny jr. did above would never come through in any other Western country. For a reason.

    So when you say the USA is "supposed to be free" you actually mean it's too free?

    Also:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/giuliani-sued-election-fraud-trump-b1792216.html

    I'm not sure there's something like 'too free'. As said, as soon as you cross a line and limit someone else's freedom, you're making the country less free. The same goes for gun laws by the way. As soon as I pull a loaded gun to someone's head, that person's freedom is severely limited. Again, the rest of the Western world seems to understand this except for the USA. So no, it's not beeing 'too' free. It's beeing limitless.

    I'm glad Giuliani is beeing sued. It's about time, they should've done that as soon as his first tweet/public statement came out. But better late than never.

    I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you only seeing it from the point of view of the person being slandered? That their 'freedom' is being impacted? Because when you limit what the person who is committing the slander says, then you're taking their freedom away. You can't really have both.
    A reminder of your original question: "How can it be in a country that's supposed to be free, you can claim anything without reporcussions?" And the answer is: freedom to speak lets you claim (more or less) anything, so you're answering your own question. But there are no restrictions on the existence of repercussions either, as shown by the Giuliani example.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    Revelator wrote: »


    Little did this professor know how far his advice would be taken. Today spoken English consists of the F-word, the S-word, and some weak connective tissue.

    That's bullsh**

    ;)
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited January 2021 Posts: 7,547
    Americans seem to be obsessed with the idea of "absolute individual freedom", which doesn't actually exist. You talk about a country that's "supposed to be free", but that's vastly oversimplifying it. Americans don't have absolute freedom to do whatever they want. They also don't have absolute freedom to say whatever they want without repercussions, as I think @mtm is saying. The first amendment only says that the government won't create laws that prohibit the rights to freedom of speech, to create and organize within religions, and to organize and protest peacefully. Essentially they won't arrest you for what you say. But in the cases of slander and libel, what you say can materially damage another person, and they have a right to pursue being made whole in those cases.
  • edited January 2021 Posts: 7,507
    The conservative American's concept of "freedom" means "freedom to do whatever I like and strict regulations and rules against things I don't like". ;)
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    jobo wrote: »
    The conservative American's concept of "freedom" means "freedom to do whatever I like and strict regulations and rules against things I don't like". ;)

    Yep. It's largely the same here in Canada; freedom to do what you please as long as you're more like the colonial Europeans than the indigenous Canadians.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    Americans seem to be obsessed with the idea of "absolute individual freedom", which doesn't actually exist.

    jobo wrote: »
    The conservative American's concept of "freedom" means "freedom to do whatever I like and strict regulations and rules against things I don't like". ;)

    Yes indeed to both of those. The bonkers types who feel that wearing masks impacts on their personal 'freedom' to get their hair done just beggar belief really. And are obviously not unique to the US, but hearing that word trumpeted to protest anything they don't like is galling, frankly. Such as they should be free to shoot black people etc.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,179
    mtm wrote: »
    Americans seem to be obsessed with the idea of "absolute individual freedom", which doesn't actually exist.

    jobo wrote: »
    The conservative American's concept of "freedom" means "freedom to do whatever I like and strict regulations and rules against things I don't like". ;)

    Yes indeed to both of those. The bonkers types who feel that wearing masks impacts on their personal 'freedom' to get their hair done just beggar belief really. And are obviously not unique to the US, but hearing that word trumpeted to protest anything they don't like is galling, frankly. Such as they should be free to shoot black people etc.

    Other crazy arguments are used too.

    "It's un-American." (Whatever that means.)
    "Jesus doesn't wear masks!" (Yeah, okay, ... and?)

    Let's just say it how it is. People have become wimps. If they can't have their holidays abroad, get their hair done, go to a restaurant, ... everything turns into a mess.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Americans seem to be obsessed with the idea of "absolute individual freedom", which doesn't actually exist.

    jobo wrote: »
    The conservative American's concept of "freedom" means "freedom to do whatever I like and strict regulations and rules against things I don't like". ;)

    Yes indeed to both of those. The bonkers types who feel that wearing masks impacts on their personal 'freedom' to get their hair done just beggar belief really. And are obviously not unique to the US, but hearing that word trumpeted to protest anything they don't like is galling, frankly. Such as they should be free to shoot black people etc.

    Other crazy arguments are used too.

    "It's un-American." (Whatever that means.)
    "Jesus doesn't wear masks!" (Yeah, okay, ... and?)

    Let's just say it how it is. People have become wimps. If they can't have their holidays abroad, get their hair done, go to a restaurant, ... everything turns into a mess.

    Exactly. Wearing a mask is an inconvenience to be sure. But it's for the better of the community. People don't want to wear a mask, and so they'll do whatever conclusion shopping they need to do online to come up with a million BS reasons to not wear one.

    "Jesus doesn't wear masks"... as if the man hasn't been dead for thousands of years? :P Do they mean "didn't wear masks"? :))
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,179
    Well @NickTwentyTwo, there are those wearing "Jesus wants me to vote4trump" t shirts. The voices in my head, you know. 😉 Not the sharpest tools in the shed.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited January 2021 Posts: 7,547
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Well @NickTwentyTwo, there are those wearing "Jesus wants me to vote4trump" t shirts. The voices in my head, you know. 😉 Not the sharpest tools in the shed.

    Yikes! lol

    Isn't one of their complaints about Biden that he's too old? ;)
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited January 2021 Posts: 13,978
    "Jesus didn't wear a mask."

    Well he wouldn't need to..... he was a fictional character.

    tumblr_nyds0bFbPK1rrx588o1_500.gif
  • Posts: 2,917
    If Jesus did wear a mask he could have avoided getting crucified. But they didn't have Mission Impossible-style masks 2000 years ago.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited January 2021 Posts: 7,547
    Revelator wrote: »
    If Jesus did wear a mask he could have avoided getting crucified. But they didn't have Mission Impossible-style masks 2000 years ago.

    I hate all the Deus Ex Maskina in the MI franchise. :( They get out of every situation by having a high tech mask that makes you look 100% like someone else. What a lazy way to write a character out of a situation.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,179
    Revelator wrote: »
    If Jesus did wear a mask he could have avoided getting crucified. But they didn't have Mission Impossible-style masks 2000 years ago.

    I hate all the Deus Ex Maskina in the MI franchise. :( They get out of every situation by having a high tech mask that makes you look 100% like someone else. What a lazy way to write a character out of a situation.

    Good one, mate. 😄
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,253
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    How can it be in a country that's supposed to be free, you can claim anything without reporcussions?

    Because it's free..? What do you mean?
    I think he was pretty clearly referring to slander, as in maliciously making false statements about someone that harms that person's reputation. Slander can put someone in a corner, placing restriction on how that person can go about his/her life. That's not a "free" lifestyle at all.

    So people shouldn't be free to speak or they should?

    Bear in mind I do think all of this talk of 'free speech' recently is nonsense- you can't be free to say anything, and even if you do it doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with you, which is what some of these people seem to think it does.

    They should, obviously, as long as it's not infringing anybody else's freedom, and that's why libel and slander are illegal. The thing with the USA is though you never see any cases made. All those serious accusations of pedophelia i.e. go unpunished. No proof is asked. With the end result hundreds of thousands of people think it's actually true and start to act that way. What Donny jr. did above would never come through in any other Western country. For a reason.

    So when you say the USA is "supposed to be free" you actually mean it's too free?

    Also:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/giuliani-sued-election-fraud-trump-b1792216.html

    I'm not sure there's something like 'too free'. As said, as soon as you cross a line and limit someone else's freedom, you're making the country less free. The same goes for gun laws by the way. As soon as I pull a loaded gun to someone's head, that person's freedom is severely limited. Again, the rest of the Western world seems to understand this except for the USA. So no, it's not beeing 'too' free. It's beeing limitless.

    I'm glad Giuliani is beeing sued. It's about time, they should've done that as soon as his first tweet/public statement came out. But better late than never.

    I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you only seeing it from the point of view of the person being slandered? That their 'freedom' is being impacted? Because when you limit what the person who is committing the slander says, then you're taking their freedom away. You can't really have both.
    A reminder of your original question: "How can it be in a country that's supposed to be free, you can claim anything without reporcussions?" And the answer is: freedom to speak lets you claim (more or less) anything, so you're answering your own question. But there are no restrictions on the existence of repercussions either, as shown by the Giuliani example.

    I highlighted the most crucial word there. A country is only a free country when all living there have the same freedom. So if you allow one to impair the freedom of the other, the whole country is less free for it. If that wasn't the case, i.e. North Korea would be the most free country in the world, as its leader can do anything to anyone without repercussions.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    How can it be in a country that's supposed to be free, you can claim anything without reporcussions?

    Because it's free..? What do you mean?
    I think he was pretty clearly referring to slander, as in maliciously making false statements about someone that harms that person's reputation. Slander can put someone in a corner, placing restriction on how that person can go about his/her life. That's not a "free" lifestyle at all.

    So people shouldn't be free to speak or they should?

    Bear in mind I do think all of this talk of 'free speech' recently is nonsense- you can't be free to say anything, and even if you do it doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with you, which is what some of these people seem to think it does.

    They should, obviously, as long as it's not infringing anybody else's freedom, and that's why libel and slander are illegal. The thing with the USA is though you never see any cases made. All those serious accusations of pedophelia i.e. go unpunished. No proof is asked. With the end result hundreds of thousands of people think it's actually true and start to act that way. What Donny jr. did above would never come through in any other Western country. For a reason.

    So when you say the USA is "supposed to be free" you actually mean it's too free?

    Also:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/giuliani-sued-election-fraud-trump-b1792216.html

    I'm not sure there's something like 'too free'. As said, as soon as you cross a line and limit someone else's freedom, you're making the country less free. The same goes for gun laws by the way. As soon as I pull a loaded gun to someone's head, that person's freedom is severely limited. Again, the rest of the Western world seems to understand this except for the USA. So no, it's not beeing 'too' free. It's beeing limitless.

    I'm glad Giuliani is beeing sued. It's about time, they should've done that as soon as his first tweet/public statement came out. But better late than never.

    I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you only seeing it from the point of view of the person being slandered? That their 'freedom' is being impacted? Because when you limit what the person who is committing the slander says, then you're taking their freedom away. You can't really have both.
    A reminder of your original question: "How can it be in a country that's supposed to be free, you can claim anything without reporcussions?" And the answer is: freedom to speak lets you claim (more or less) anything, so you're answering your own question. But there are no restrictions on the existence of repercussions either, as shown by the Giuliani example.

    I highlighted the most crucial word there. A country is only a free country when all living there have the same freedom. So if you allow one to impair the freedom of the other, the whole country is less free for it.

    That's mad. It doesn't make any sense, and is not what people are talking about when they say 'free country'. Freedom is the right to act, think or speak without being held back from doing that, it's not about whether you affect or upset someone else. In fact being able to upset someone else is entirely part of being 'free' (although it's not the objective of course).

    You're not talking about freedom, you're just talking about impact upon others. Your 'freedom' is in no way decreased if someone accuses you of doing something you haven't or calls you a name.

    And I have no idea why you've highlighted the word 'country'. We've been talking about the US, we know we're talking about a country.
    If that wasn't the case, i.e. North Korea would be the most free country in the world, as its leader can do anything to anyone without repercussions.

    Its leader is only one man, you can't define a whole country by what one single person in it can do.
  • All this blathering about what "freedom" is or is not... I've been holding back for awhile, but hey, I've got to be free to post this quote:

    "Free is when you don't have to pay for nothing or do nothing, we want to be free. Free as the wind." -- Frank Zappa, "Teen Age Wind"

    Consider yourself free to click on or ignore this link:
  • Posts: 5,993
    The last night, one of my neighbours had a birthday party going on. A LOUD birthday party (how many people were they anyway ?). A birthday party that lasted till 3 am, if not 4. Aren't there rules against that kind of things in my building ? Apparently not.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,028
    Gerard wrote: »
    The last night, one of my neighbours had a birthday party going on. A LOUD birthday party (how many people were they anyway ?). A birthday party that lasted till 3 am, if not 4. Aren't there rules against that kind of things in my building ? Apparently not.

    I don't know about France, but I'm sure the police would have been interested over here (in Germany). Not in normal times, but doubtless during "lockdown". Still happy I don't live in a location where I might have to report anyone.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,253
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    How can it be in a country that's supposed to be free, you can claim anything without reporcussions?

    Because it's free..? What do you mean?
    I think he was pretty clearly referring to slander, as in maliciously making false statements about someone that harms that person's reputation. Slander can put someone in a corner, placing restriction on how that person can go about his/her life. That's not a "free" lifestyle at all.

    So people shouldn't be free to speak or they should?

    Bear in mind I do think all of this talk of 'free speech' recently is nonsense- you can't be free to say anything, and even if you do it doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with you, which is what some of these people seem to think it does.

    They should, obviously, as long as it's not infringing anybody else's freedom, and that's why libel and slander are illegal. The thing with the USA is though you never see any cases made. All those serious accusations of pedophelia i.e. go unpunished. No proof is asked. With the end result hundreds of thousands of people think it's actually true and start to act that way. What Donny jr. did above would never come through in any other Western country. For a reason.

    So when you say the USA is "supposed to be free" you actually mean it's too free?

    Also:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/giuliani-sued-election-fraud-trump-b1792216.html

    I'm not sure there's something like 'too free'. As said, as soon as you cross a line and limit someone else's freedom, you're making the country less free. The same goes for gun laws by the way. As soon as I pull a loaded gun to someone's head, that person's freedom is severely limited. Again, the rest of the Western world seems to understand this except for the USA. So no, it's not beeing 'too' free. It's beeing limitless.

    I'm glad Giuliani is beeing sued. It's about time, they should've done that as soon as his first tweet/public statement came out. But better late than never.

    I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you only seeing it from the point of view of the person being slandered? That their 'freedom' is being impacted? Because when you limit what the person who is committing the slander says, then you're taking their freedom away. You can't really have both.
    A reminder of your original question: "How can it be in a country that's supposed to be free, you can claim anything without reporcussions?" And the answer is: freedom to speak lets you claim (more or less) anything, so you're answering your own question. But there are no restrictions on the existence of repercussions either, as shown by the Giuliani example.

    I highlighted the most crucial word there. A country is only a free country when all living there have the same freedom. So if you allow one to impair the freedom of the other, the whole country is less free for it.

    That's mad. It doesn't make any sense, and is not what people are talking about when they say 'free country'. Freedom is the right to act, think or speak without being held back from doing that, it's not about whether you affect or upset someone else. In fact being able to upset someone else is entirely part of being 'free' (although it's not the objective of course).

    You're not talking about freedom, you're just talking about impact upon others. Your 'freedom' is in no way decreased if someone accuses you of doing something you haven't or calls you a name.

    And I have no idea why you've highlighted the word 'country'. We've been talking about the US, we know we're talking about a country.
    If that wasn't the case, i.e. North Korea would be the most free country in the world, as its leader can do anything to anyone without repercussions.

    Its leader is only one man, you can't define a whole country by what one single person in it can do.
    No, it's not madness, it's called civic society. Logic, if you will. You say you can't define a whole country by one man, but you can define it by individual rights? That is contradictory in itself. The whole concept of society is the balance of everybody's 'freedoms'. It HAS to be. If I had the ultimate freedom i could get a gun and start killing people without reporcussions. Even in the usa I cant. So far for my freedom. The fact that some Americans believe it's their 'freedom' to implicate others in heinous crimes (crime means illigal, so limit to freedom) goes to show they understand little of their own society.
  • Posts: 5,993
    Today, hot water wasn't hot at all, for the umpteenth time in two months. It's starting to bug all the residents here, so much so that a petition has been posted on my building's door. Let's hope that it will be useful.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,253
    Gerard wrote: »
    Today, hot water wasn't hot at all, for the umpteenth time in two months. It's starting to bug all the residents here, so much so that a petition has been posted on my building's door. Let's hope that it will be useful.

    If it's a community building that should be taken care of no? I thought you guys in France were pretty good at teaming up together to get that sort of thing sorted.
  • Posts: 5,993
    There's a true crime show here in France that has bbeen on air for 20 years, and contains some 250 episodes. So, can someone explains to me why, when a private channel decided to air it, they reair always the same ten or so episodes, multiple times per week ? It's not as if they were lacking in stories, right ?
  • Posts: 15,116
    A former colleague of mine, from the company and working place I hated, contacted me to ask me about the passwords for one of the company's clients platform. I gave him what he needed to be polite and because I might still need them for reference in the future, but darnit it reminded me how clueless and disorganised they are and how little I miss them. Next time, if there is a next time, I'll ignore the request.

    On the plus side my contract with my current job has been extended for six months.
Sign In or Register to comment.