• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Whiner

About frenchie

  • Rank
  • Birthday 03/14/1967

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Brooklyn, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

5,035 profile views
  1. that's not an accurate analogy. an accurate analogy would be: boasting that you had killed people, and gotten away with it
  2. Depends on the context. I worked front-line mental health for a bit, with "troubled" youth. Even with affirmative action, it was still mostly women - which meant the guys wound up working WAY more night shifts. Only if you remove all real-world context, and pretend this is an abstract theoretical exercise, where caeteris paribus. But in real life, "all other things" are not "the same" - so, in real life, A-D and AA are not opposed, at all. I thought I just explained that. ? It's like you guys are being deliberately thick, or something.
  3. Terror in New York truck runs down bikers

    I'm no fan of Trump, but that's retarded. We should kill a dead guy?
  4. Terror in New York truck runs down bikers

    1st of all, this: 2nd of all, and in support of the above, consider how much of the earlier "timelines" was actually reporters & randos making speculative leaps based on tidbits of incomplete information. Have you ever been part of the news, even tangetially? Present for something that you later got to watch TV? I have, a couple of times. It's truly amazing how much of the media "coverage" is complete bullshit. And nowadays, that's only the first layer of confusion. Add on the internet's layer of speculation, then media coverage based on the speculation... some more internet speculation... etc. The media version is guaranteed to look a lot more inconsistent than what was actually said.
  5. Just Give Me A Lawyer Dog

    Reason is Koch funded?
  6. Drug Prohibition: Still Stupid

    My very first waitering job, this one coworker always - no matter the weather - wore long sleeved turtlenecks. I thought it was a religious thing, at first. Turned out, she'd survived a house fire. 3rd degree burns over most of her body, her bedding had melted onto her. It took a year and a half before she was able to leave the hospital; then three years, gradually weaning, to get off the morphine. I think of her every time that bullshit debate comes up. edit: it's gruesome, but on 2nd thought the post makes no sense without it: since she didn't have any skin, she had to wear this all-over bandage, sort of like a wetsuit, while skin & scar tissue grew back. To keep out infection, and to not dehydrate instantly, and so on. Problem is, your skin cells grow into the neoprene-like fabric the suit's made out of. So every few weeks, you get a new one. The old one has to be peeled off, taking part of that new skin with it, every time. For a year and a half. She said, he doctor'd told her, that her maintenance dose when she got to go home, was about ten times enough to kill a non-habituated person.
  7. Terror in New York truck runs down bikers

    OMFG, Tom, don't fall down that rabbit hole... Shitty reporting and confusion =! acting weird.
  8. "anti-discrimination" = meant to prevent discrimination. "affirmative action" = meant to remedy past (or covert / informal / unconscious) discrimination. The goal, with both, is to create equal opportunity. The difference is anti-discrimination assumes "all other things being equal"; whereas affirmative action recognizes "all other things" are not, in fact, equal. If you think these are opposed, rather than complementary - you're wrong.
  9. Jim Crow in the White House?

    Yes, pretty much. The bolded bit - or, to be more clear (the misuse of "conscientious" is buggin me), Kelly's actual words: "men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand” - elides the question of whether they were just plain wrong. Yeah, sure, it's true. But it doesn't go far enough. It's fuckin irrelevant, really. He could be talking about Himmler, or Beria, or OBL, and it would still be true. Good intentions don't count for shit, if what you're doing is wrong. I'm not saying they were evil. Just saying they were wrong, and good intentions don't change that.
  10. Just Give Me A Lawyer Dog

    I agree with you, but it seems the Supremes, maybe, don't: "the suspect must unambiguously request counsel" (my emphasis). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/512/452/case.html I'm just objecting to the way it's being portrayed as if the "dog" had anything to do with it. That part is clearly just snark on the judge's part, not the basis for deciding the request was ambiguous. I'd be interested to see a complete transcript of, or at least having more info about, the interrogation after that point. In Davis, when the suspect said "maybe I should talk to a lawyer", the cops asked him if he was requesting a lawyer, he said no, they took a break, then went over his rights again before continuing. Although the Supremes also said the cops didn't have to do that. "While it will often be good police practice for officers to clarify whether a suspect making an ambiguous statement really wants an attorney, they are not required to ask clarifying questions." ...oh, hey! SloopJonB! They also said Although a suspect need not "speak with the discrimination of an Oxford don," post, at 476 (SOUTER, J., concurring in judgment), he must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. So there! Ya elitist shmuck!
  11. Just Give Me A Lawyer Dog

    Damn, son. I sure didn't expect that from you! Classist... It might be harder to notice in Canada, but English has as many regional & class-based & race-based dialects as French does. It's pretty obvious in the US; especially when you have friends from different parts (& different classes) of England, a wife from Australia, co-workers from Trinidad, etc. Now, in French, we have the Académie française; 40 stuffed shirts in Paris, called "the immortals", whose job it is to declare what is & isn't "proper" French. But English is much more democratic: popular usage determines what is & isn't acceptable. That's why linguists talk about "standard american english", "standard canadian english", "standard british english", as opposed to "correct" or "proper" English. It's why "color" and "colour" are both acceptable spellings. Is there anyone here who can honestly claim they don't know what "dog" (or rather, "dawg") means, in this context? I don't think so. Which means it's perfectly acceptable usage, even if it isn't "standard". Besides - it being Loosianah - I'm pretty sure the cops & probably some of the lawyers & judges weren't speaking in your Standard Canadian English, either.
  12. Picture American Beauty, without finally/suddenly coming to his senses near the end because he's passed-out drunk in the men's room, so far gone that the bartender has to physically carry him out, at closing time. and a pubescent boy, or two, instead of a girl. and a LOT of coke. He's a brilliant actor, but he's also, from what I've heard, a truly & deeply fucked-up human being.
  13. Yoo Hoo ... Mr. Obama sir...

    what was that line of Karl's, again? Sol used to quote it a bunch. "...we laugh..."
  14. Jim Crow in the White House?

    I have to correct myself on the Wehrmacht analogy. Seems that "Clean Wehrmacht" is a myth, created after-the-fact to redeem their rep, so West Germany could re-arm & we could GTFO. In reality, it only applies to the way they fought on the Western Front; falls apart if you look at how they behaved in Poland, or anywhere on the Eastern Front, and ignore that they were the "second pillar" of the Reich (the first pillar being the Nazi Party).