I agree to disagree. Automatic replace quoted images into URL links looks a good solution but there are some disadvantages. URL links (in quotes) will blur original contents (infographics, charts, ie.) and make readers a litle bit confused what posters pointed out. Sure readers can click on URL link of image to see what it is but it will be a problem and might distract them from those images, then might miss some valuable information. I propose to restrict a fixed resolution for all images in quotes. Along a similar train of thought, another issue I have seen raised before is when people modify the topic subject in a thread reply, and people quote them without even noticing. Before too long the thread subject title is hijacked. A feature to make a subject title the same as the OP automatically even when quoting would be useful for this, because when this is abused it can be distracting from the actual discussion.
I disagreed because OPs have to update their threads over time and at different updates their threads need to have different titles for posts inside threads (not OPs). I think only allow OPs to edit titles of OPs or posts in their threads are more appropriately. Any posts quote post A or replies later the post A of OPs with the title "project X, update in November 2019" will have only one title "Re: project X, update in November 2019". But once again, I think there are many people disagree with my suggestion too. And I disagree with your disagreement. What is stopping people from just... scrolling up to look at the image? No one said only allow the OP to make subject headings. I said automatically make them the same as the OP, so that when you click quote/reply, it shows the OP title, not the title you just replied to. Nothing would stop you from manually changing it. Please at least read/think about an idea presented before shitting on it, this is just lazy.
|
|
|
1. strangled or strangling. same bones are affected.. sorry but true 2. when suffercating by own hand or others your eyes in both cases go bloodshot 3. no mention of defensive marks like being hit in the head or bound first to then strangle him. 4. no mention of any nail marks of epstein trying to remove the material from his neck
so no sign of other persons involved also if there was a other person, the conspiracy fud would continue because it would be blamed on another inmate first. obviously important figures wouldnt visit the cell themselves. so then the conspiracy fud would go down the path of 'was it a inmate that just hated paedo's' or 'hired to kill' thus the tinfoil hat people wouldnt end the drama even if they could find something that said someone else was involved.
(in short, even if there was mountains of evidence in favour of a conspiracy. a conspiracy nut wouldnt shut up and b happy with the result and would instead still dig deeper)
sorry tinfoil hat wearers. he is dead, simple fact. he has no signs of being hit or defending himself or trying to loosen the material around his neck his injuries were caused by strangulation AKA hanging
and before you continue . hanging does break your neck. its why its used so much more then pills. you either die from lack of oxygen or the breaking of your neck from the hanging. thus doubling chances of a successful suicide
Tell the expert career pathologists and coroners to go home, Franky1 is on the case and he has it all under control. Nothing to see here, move along. No one mention the guards that just got arrested for allowing this murd.... I mean suicide to happen.
|
|
|
Cool story bro. One of those pictures doesn't even have Epstein in it, and another one is a known (horrible) photoshop, but don't let that stop you from confirming your bias. the one you said was without epstein is was actually a 2 part picture of the same party ORGANISED BY EPSTEIN which trump was there. like i said look at the clothes and room decor.. here https://youtu.be/tm6T4_Tm_hothe other pic was more of a hint to trumps inappropriateness with his daughter. not the overlay of epstein can you not remember the stuff trump said about his own daughter just a few examples https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EPEkk6qWkgstill wanna deny that trump had little social connection to epstein? even after the (first) video link i just shown shows otherwise. ok more pics of them together and also quotes in 2002 from trump http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/ And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” 15 year friendship and talking about how he knows epstein likes the younger girls and videos of them socialising together .. if you want to pretend it was just strictly business and nothing social and how trump didnt know anything about epsteins prefrences. then you might be as ditsy as the cheerleaders trump and epstein danced with Your fetish for Trump is frankly kind of repulsive. You are the kind of person who would probably get off having him shit on your chest or something. I have known my postman for 15 years. I am sure he is a great guy too. That doesn't make us close friends or mean we hang out all the time. Don't speak for me. I said they had "very little social contact" not the gibberish you are regurgitating from your fantasies. You might also call that quote about young girls Trump calling him out and warning people, but that doesn't serve your pedo daughter fucking slander narrative does it? Of course not. If they were such great pals why did he bar Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago resort after he was exposed? Why was he so willing to hand over information to investigators looking into him? "Edwards: The only thing that I can say about President Trump is that he is the only person who, in 2009 when I served a lot of subpoenas on a lot of people, or at least gave notice to some pretty connected people, that I want to talk to them, is the only person who picked up the phone and said, let’s just talk. I’ll give you as much time as you want. I’ll tell you what you need to know, and was very helpful, in the information that he gave, and gave no indication whatsoever that he was involved in anything untoward whatsoever, but had good information. That checked out and that helped us and we didn’t have to take a deposition of him in 2009." https://youtu.be/Yqb59n69Z80Clinton on the other hand has been on "The Lolita Express" at least 26 times according to records, but same diff right?
|
|
|
I have seen a common complaint about images being quotes and being loaded over and over again in threads making the page jump around and increasing load times. I was thinking a simple way to solve this issue would be to convert embedded images in quotes automatically into URLs. This way the image is still referenced but lazy people quoting it won't spam up the page. Of course it could be turned into an embed manually if needed.
Along a similar train of thought, another issue I have seen raised before is when people modify the topic subject in a thread reply, and people quote them without even noticing. Before too long the thread subject title is hijacked. A feature to make a subject title the same as the OP automatically even when quoting would be useful for this, because when this is abused it can be distracting from the actual discussion.
|
|
|
Has anyone figured out what the charges for impeachment might be? For a long time it was supposed to be Russia Collusion, but I heard that was gone. Then I heard it was going to be Tit-For-Tat, but that's been not mentioned for some time now.
It's pretty clear they are primarily trying to impeach him for abusing his power to influence the election. Are you really only paying attention to media sources that point out why he shouldn't be impeached? They will probably tack on a couple obstruction articles for ordering everyone he can to not cooperate and also attacking the witness on twitter last week mid-testimony. I do admit it would be very interesting to see a United States President impeached for a tweet. Do it. Please, just do it. Doesn't really matter the medium of the crime. Plenty of people have been convicted for posts online historically. Nothing new there... However we got him on about 50+ charges non-internet related Gonna be good once he's removed from office and then criminally liable for everything he's done. And that's "good." Interesting point of view. I guess then the POTUS Ivanka will just take care of that annoyance. Don't you think at some point people will tire of the hate? Yep, just before they are loaded on the rail cars.
|
|
|
No it's not something that is used in the game itself, it's for your own personal use. Me and some friends were screwing around with it with all the lights off, and it was INSANE how it worked.
It's not like an addon to wear during the game, it's something that you use personally. Look it up as well. If you are talking about a physical device, it is probably just a IR illuminator, they are dirt cheap and sold as kids toys. Eh I mean, not a kids toy. Actually a tad on the expensive side (in my mind, probably not in the world of night vision goggles). $200 for the game, some other collectors stuff, and for this. I guess that would peg the price for this thing around $120ish? ? Does that count as a shitty kids toy (Not being a dick, just don't know the going rate for things like this) "professional" IR illuminators start around the $100 range so the price you are targeting is about right, but the fact is it is just a big boy toy. IR illuminators are fun, but they aren't "night vision" as most people understand it and have some serious limitations. They have their uses, but at the end of the day it is still just a digital camera with some IR LEDs in a cool looking headset made to look like actual military night vision.
|
|
|
Trump will be disqualified by a simple majority in senate. Therefore, he won't be eligible to run for 2020. Therefore, he won't win a second term.
|
|
|
China is going to be the next biggest threat to the entire world when it comes to threats to fundamental human rights. It's true that the Chinese have no care when it comes to the rights of its citizens and example of this is how they are governing Hong Kong at the very moment, the only thing that currently prevents them from going there to stop the uprising is the international community. But I am very skeptical about the whole organ harvesting story. It's just unbelievable.
It is a fact and is well documented even among mainstream media if you bother to look.
|
|
|
No it's not something that is used in the game itself, it's for your own personal use. Me and some friends were screwing around with it with all the lights off, and it was INSANE how it worked.
It's not like an addon to wear during the game, it's something that you use personally. Look it up as well. If you are talking about a physical device, it is probably just a IR illuminator, they are dirt cheap and sold as kids toys.
|
|
|
I also find this annoying, especially since it shifts the text as I am trying to read it as images load, it makes me want to punch toddlers its so agitating. I generally just stop the page from loading once the text loads. I even have some users in Politics & Society that will go out of their way to make images I take the time to turn into a URL so they don't spam the page loading useless copies of the same images, back into active images as if you can't just scroll up and look at it.
|
|
|
Cool story bro. One of those pictures doesn't even have Epstein in it, and another one is a known (horrible) photoshop, but don't let that stop you from confirming your bias.
|
|
|
Surprised that NYT covered this story. The outside world has already heard about the reeducation camps before so I'm not surprised that it is still ongoing. That they've opened up their economy don't mean they'll just change these policies. It seems it actually allowed them to EXPAND these programs since they now got more money.
What shocked me was organ harvesting being done to the Uyghurs they put in these camps. Even I never imagined the Communists doing it.
Don't forget, hundreds of thousands in camps waiting to have their organs harvested for sale on the open market is nothing compared to the genocidal policy of temporarily holding people who willing cross the border illegally for later deportation. Now THOSE are the REAL concentration camps.
|
|
|
Saying both Clinton and Trump were involved with Epstein is a false equivalence. Clinton has been documented as visiting Epstein island at least a dozen times. Trump has never been there. Trump had a minor business relationship with Epstein that fell through, had very little social contact with him, and has even been documented as providing evidence to prosecutors when Epstein was investigated in the past when no one else was cooperating. The Clinton trail of dirt is wide and deep. Dirt on Trump is virtually non-existent, because if it did exist the establishment would already be leveraging the shit out of it instead of having to make shit up like they currently are.
|
|
|
Has anyone figured out what the charges for impeachment might be? For a long time it was supposed to be Russia Collusion, but I heard that was gone. Then I heard it was going to be Tit-For-Tat, but that's been not mentioned for some time now.
It's pretty clear they are primarily trying to impeach him for abusing his power to influence the election. Are you really only paying attention to media sources that point out why he shouldn't be impeached? They will probably tack on a couple obstruction articles for ordering everyone he can to not cooperate and also attacking the witness on twitter last week mid-testimony. I am glad you think impeachment is the kind of act that is on the level of a cop putting his thumb on the scale as he weighs out a couple joints for his report. The reason obstruction is a favorite charge levied by the democrats is because it is it is a process charge that is extremely ambiguous and very harshly punished. The sort of crime that you can convict some one of saying they had a ham sandwich at 2:15 when it was really 2:13. You abduct the target under color of law, scare the shit out of them (usually in front of their family), you then grill them with thousands of questions over and over and over again for hours and days, recording the entire process so you can review it later for any inconsistencies which could be construed as a deceit not matter how innocent, and prosecuted with felony prison time. It is right up the Demgulag's alley. Especially when you don't have any evidence of crimes, it is the easiest way to invent them.
|
|
|
What they were talking about has no bearing on the existence of the subpoenas.
It absolutely does, and you'd have to be either retarded or dishonest to think otherwise. Agree with me or you are a retarded liar. Very persuasive. The fact still stands words and opinions don't prove a legal document exists, a legal document does.
|
|
|
This isn't a breakthrough for anyone who has ever tried psilocybin.
|
|
|
You have no evidence.
Then what are Pompeo and Giuliani talking about here if the subpoenas don't exist? https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/DD4fN7I.pngYou have the word and perceptions of 3rd parties independent of the matter of fact of the existence of the subpoenas.
These particular 3rd parties are not "independent of the matter..." -- they are the recipients of the subpoenas you claim don't exist acknowledging receipt of said subpoenas. Their words and perceptions are not evidence of their existence any more than the pictures of Bigfoot I showed you earlier. You keep smoking that rock if that is all you got. Until then I will be waiting for you to produce the subpoenas.
I know you're just trying to wear me down here by being stubborn in your ignorance, trying to disguise it as some sort of logically-principled high ground. At the end of the day, which it is well past for you, you're still wrong regardless of your inability to digest evidence that suggests your belief is wrong. The rest of the world has already moved on from the issue. The subpoenas were served, some complied with them, some did not. Some of the subpoenaed individuals have already given testimony, and copies of their actual subpoena documents have been publicly released. Yet here you are still, white knuckling this one rock of ignorance in a sea of truth, completely encased in the fear of having to admit you were wrong, unable to move on. Trump has been all but impeached at this point, but because you can't see a copy of two particular subpoena documents, they must not be real, despite the individuals receiving said subpoenas having acknowledged their existence. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/styles/the_breaking_news_image_style/public/man-marooned-on-rock-in-ocean.jpg?itok=v-G0opAgactual picture of TECSHARE claiming yet another victory from his logically-principled high ground What they were talking about has no bearing on the existence of the subpoenas. They are independent of the existence of the subpoenas. They don't declare subpoenas real as if by magic. Subpoenas are a legal document backed by force of penalty or imprisonment which have specific requirements to be valid enforceable legal documents. I don't need to wear you down. It is a fact you can not match my persistence and stubbornness, and your proclamations of correctitude are equally as weak. The subpoenas directed at the executive branch were always the subject of debate. Trump isn't going anywhere if the law has anything to say about it. The actual law that is, not this Soviet gulag type inquisition you are so fond of. Also this: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/huge-after-removing-ukrainian-prosecutor-shokin-obamas-state-department-plotted-with-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-in-white-house-then-pushed-steele-dossier-to-fbi/
|
|
|
You refuse to budge off this one particular point because you get schooled every time you try to approach the topic from another angle. First you tried to bring up the equivalence of believing in Bigfoot, then you tried to talk about courts of record, then you tried to redefine what a house clerk does. Now you are hanging on to this one stupid rock as a tidal wave of evidence smothers you.
If you had a decent answer to my question, you would give it. But you don't, so you won't. Keep hanging on to that rock if its all you've got. Schooled? Very persuasive as usual. You have no evidence. You have the word and perceptions of 3rd parties independent of the matter of fact of the existence of the subpoenas. Their words and perceptions are not evidence of their existence any more than the pictures of Bigfoot I showed you earlier. You keep smoking that rock if that is all you got. Until then I will be waiting for you to produce the subpoenas.
|
|
|
My recognized inability to produce the subpoenas doesn't prevent you from being able to answer my question. Why would you still believe the subpoenas don't exist when Pompeo and Giuliani, their recipients, acknowledged receiving them? https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/DD4fN7I.pngSurely if you had a rational reason for not believing Pompeo and Giuliani, you would answer the question. It doesn't prevent me at all. What prevents me from answering is because it serves as a mechanism of distraction from your inability to produce the subpoenas.
|
|
|
I provided answers to your question. Now just answer mine: why would you still believe the subpoenas don't exist when Pompeo and Giuliani, their recipients, acknowledged receiving them? https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/DD4fN7I.pngIt's just a question. Surely if you had a reasonable response you could give it here. You haven't provided the subpoenas. It is not just a question, it is a mechanism to divert attention from your inability to prove your premise.
|
|
|
|