Re: Beware of unintended consequences
@ jake
"For myself, there aren't enough hours in the day. Life's too short as it is. "
Aye.
406 publicly visible posts • joined 20 Jan 2016
@ AC
"As did Hadrian, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitler, and quite a few in-between. It never worked."
Perhaps you could enlighten the commentariat by telling us which of those four names you offered was either Prime Minister (Churchill) of the United Kingdom, or King of England (Henry VIII), as were the two names mentioned in the post(s) that you were so cravenly responding to.
And why limit yourself to just the four names? Surely there are more, aren't there? What about Ghengis Khan, no love for him? Attila? Tamerlane? Suleiman the Magnificent? The list of candidates seems very much longer than your pitiful effort.
Do you know what is predictable? This...
In every thread that even remotely has to do with Brexit, whatever the actual subject under discussion, some cringing, snivelling, pants pissing, anonymous coward will make a fuckwitted reference to either Napoleon or Hitler, comparing them to the European Union.
That's predictable
@LucreLout
"Yay, name calling. The rest of your post I've ignored on the basis that in doing so, you have stated you have no credible points to make.
Bye."
"Bit hard of thinking are we? Never mind petal, the grown ups have voted to leave, and as usual we'll do the heavy lifting. You just sit in the corner doing your angsty teenager thing."
You were saying?
@ Diogenes
I'm not surprised that dear old dad decided to sue comma here in "The land of the free and the home of the litigious."
Perhaps I should have bolded that comma which you (and others) have apparently overlooked.
Or perhaps, used the "Joke Alert" icon.
Or maybe <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags.
I haven't actually seen a film clip of dear old dad saying "It's not about the money" but I'll bet there's one out there.
Here in "The land of the free and the home of the litigious", it is standard operating procedure to file a lawsuit in the aftermath of any tragedy, large or small.
You never sue the perpetrator, they're dead, broke, or both.
Instead, you find out any product or service he used in planning or committing his act and sue the manufacturer, provider, or operator of that product or service. They'll have money, and maybe, just maybe, a sympathetic court will rule in your favor.
Then you'll have your "Justice".
@ AC
"Competed is past tense. England will compete this time because unlike the US they qualified..."
Is that supposed to be a shot? A dig? A none too subtle jab?
I'll briefly return to baseball to describe it as:
A swing and a miss.
Now back to football. This may surprise you, but I was, and continue to be, thrilled that the ridiculously styled "USMNT" failed to qualify out of their wretchedly weak group.
The chants of "USA! USA!! US... Oh!" were, and still are, music to my ears.
I despise "soccer" as it is currently, and for the foreseeable future, presented in the US. I have no interest in MLS, and very little in the amateur game over here.
It is the world game, and I resent the American attempts to reshape it into another version, or variety, of the sports already established here.
I follow European football, and have done so since the days of my youth. I think it much more entertaining than the North American sports. The same holds true for motorsport.
So, like England, the side I follow, and support, and cheer for, and have for almost 50 years, did qualify, and will be in Russia next summer.
I understand they're coming to England to play a friendly against the Three Lions at Wembley on the 10th of November.
It should be an exciting match.
@ AC
"For a similar reason that no other countries compete in your "World Series"! "
The Toronto Blue Jays - back-to-back World Series champions in 1992 and 1993.
"It said compete - i.e. in the present tense. I believe since those 2 years it has been US teams only?"
Changing the terms of your argument after it is shown to be incorrect?
Good job.
In fact, prior to the Blue Jays winning the title, it was US teams only. So what?
The Blue Jays have competed for the title of World Series champions every year since they were founded 40 years ago. They have only won the competition twice, as was pointed out to you in my previous post.
They are, in fact, the second Canadian team to compete for that title. The Montreal Expos also competed for 35 years before they moved from Montreal.
That the Blue Jays have only been champions in the two years mentioned, and the Expos never won the title, doesn't change the fact that both teams competed to do so.
Using your "present tense" argument will you also claim that England have not competed for the World Cup since 1966?
As dire as the performance of the Three Lions has been for the last 50 years, they have competed, however brief their participation.
"The point being made which obviously went straight over your head is that it's called the "World Series" for reasons other than where it takes place or who takes part - Just like the Americas Cup!"
I'm not missing any point. I am addressing your earlier claim, which is shown to be wrong.
Are you going to stand by your original contention that "no other countries compete in your "World Series" "?
Rather than accepting the correction, you have since added a further qualifier, and then gone on to a completely separate statement regarding the name of the competition, neither of which is germane to, or supportive of, your original statement.
@ AC
"For a similar reason that no other countries compete in your "World Series"! "
Ah, the wisdom of the anonymous cowards free to post anytime, anywhere, and on any subect they please.
Knowledge of the subject under discussion not required.
The Toronto Blue Jays - back-to-back World Series champions in 1992 and 1993.
@ John Smith 19
"In fact LM (and it's predecessors) has something of a record where (whoever won the contract) they ended up building the aircraft that flew (starting with the F104 and the SR71)."
John, I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, the F-104 and the SR-71 were each designed and built by Lockheed.
@ AC
AC, while I agree with your assessment of the current crop of Conservative Party clowns, (from an across the Atlantic perspective), I am somewhat sceptical with regard to your focus on the type of degree possessed any given individual.
Talent will out, it is said, and while these people all seem to have a degree of some sort, they do not seem to have any talent beyond that required to gain, and perhaps retain, high office.
I say a degree (of any sort) is immaterial, or as near as dammit. What England, or any other country for that matter, needs from it's leadership is talent above all else. A degree may be useful, but in the opinion of many, it is not necessary.
I have no doubt that some of the readership will disagree with this contention, in defense of which I offer this example.
A hard act to follow, by all accounts.
@ Slap
"Also it’s not like the JD brand is unknown here - it’s one of the most popular american whiskeys with most bars and supermarkets having stock."
I am genuinely sorry to hear that.
JD is the "Budweiser", or the "MacDonalds" of American whiskeys. It is frequently mixed with Coca-Cola, many times with Diet Coke!
"Gimme a Jack 'n Coke" is a common cry heard in saloons across the land.
With so many fine whiskeys, not to mention whiskys, available to the American consumer, it's popularity is a testament to mass marketing techniques.
@ bombastic bob
Bob, there seems to be precious little room in the multi-culti, gender-bender crowd for any recognition of, much less any discussion of, age discrimination. As you are well aware, it is out there in the workplace, and it is growing, not shrinking.
@ Andus McCoatover
"Nuclear would've meant never refuel for 20 years or so. But, it could never visit Japan, as I understand."
Andus, the nuclear powered and armed USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) is based in Yokosuka, Japan.
The USN will neither confirm or deny that it's ships are armed with nuclear weapons. The plain truth is that every USN warship of frigate or larger size is nuclear armed, whether with depth charges, missiles, or bombs.
@ Smooth Newt
"... imaginary risk of the Germans landing a small force to bring the bridge down and preventing this, the fast reconnaissance wing of the Grand Fleet, from being able to get to sea during a critical moment."
Given their stellar performance at Jutland, that might have been the best thing to happen to Beatty and his battlecruisers.
@ AC
Thank you for posting that, Bloodlands was indeed "both horrific and compelling".
Far too often people make comparisions between some nation of today and Stalin's Soviet Union and/or Hitler's Germany.
While the actions, or the intentions, of many of today's nations are both repellent and ultimately ineffective, they do not begin to approach the levels of oppression that existed under those two leaders/governments.
North Korea being an exception.
@ nematoad
"And all of them with the added goodness of systemd."
Have an upvote for mentioning what the article would not. I've switched most of my household, and my recommendation, to PCLinuxOS with the Mate desktop.
I've tried Devuan, and it seems to be very promising, but I cannot stand the Xfce environment, and I have grown lazy extremely lazy with regard to tweaking my distro.
@ Pascal Monett
"Personally, I prefer watching YouTube or general surfing on a platform that has at least a 19" screen and a keyboard/mouse combo, along with a comfy chair to enjoy the experience in - but apparently I'm a rabid old curmudgeon. And I'm perfectly fine with that."
Well said that man.
Oh, and my choice of either speakers or headphones, as the situation warrants.
@ lone_wolf
"another argument for term limits"
There are many arguments for term limits, here is the argument against:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Please don't think that you, or anyone else, can tell me who I may, or may not, vote for.