Caution CW: contains simulated road accident resulting in death - was considered safe for TV in the UK

https://youtu.be/mKHY69AFstE

I think OP was picturing a situation like this.

A Choose your own Adventure Rejection

Edit: didn’t remember strikethrough formatting correctly

I’d never really thought about until now, but do Chinese (specifically mandarin speaking) 3 year olds use Ma in place of the English speaking equivalent of “why” (repeated ad nauseum until the adult being questioned snaps!)?

I actually disagree with that, if I saw a larger gentleman wearing this I’d feel proud of him for owning his thing with self-depracating humour, and think it was funny, the same as I do here.

It’s Latin for “a person not welcome”

Thank you for sharing this. I’m going to try it out on my Italian friends :)

Yes, particularly as I get older the equipment doesn’t drain fully and needs a little help.

There’s a rhyme about it “no matter how much you shake and dance, the last few drops go down your pants”, well I choose to wipe instead of relying on the absorbance of my pants or trousers (the original saying is American so means trousers really).

At the end of the article, which is already a litany of clownish buffoonery, it states that after destroying (effectively) the MRI machine in order to retrieve the rifle, he failed to retrieve a loaded magazine. So it was just left on the floor as they left.

Edit: autocorrect had changed it to clownfish

If he were my boss I’d ignore him during work hours too, tbh.

I agree, the job of politicians is to reframe Trans rights as policies that benefit everyone. If everyone at a negotiation feels like they are winning you have a successful negotiation. Who cares if the new policy disproportionately benefits one group, we are all better off because of it, and in the case of Trans rights give them the same (non-codified) protections as everyone else.

(This is if course ignoring the oft used tactic of the far right which is to do the opposite and reframe beneficial policies (eh. ACA) as something that only benefits one group by calling it a funny name (eg. Obamacare), so it’s easier said than done, but that is what the democrats should be doing more of, imho)

Gedit

45 and 47

plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

(The more things change, the more they stay the same)

I mean, yeah, he’d have to hold the phone, no way that thing would stay the nook of his shoulder with a neck like that!

Can only speak to the UK, but in the 90s women drinking pints of beer was so radical that they got their own name - ladettes, which also tied into the Girl Power movement (might have been third-wave feminism adjacent? Idk)

These days if a woman drinks a beer nobody would even bat an eyelid, it’s just such an unusual thing to think that was ever considered not normal. This is just one case, but it’s indicative of one way that society has progressed. There are many more examples of such societal changes.

Your statement prompted me to think back to when the BBC used to run stories on the dangers of uppity Ladettes and what that might mean for the establishment.

These are beautiful, thank you for sharing.

It really speaks to something when I’m rooting (no pun intended) for a Kiwi vine to find the pole, like “come on buddy you can do it”. Very satisfying to watch.

“…they fight for airplane meals…”, now we know what goes on behind the curtain, a Mile-High Fight Club!

Judges hate this this one trick. Call them rude words then they can’t convict you because that would make them biased!

Fellow right-side-of-the-ponder here (so take with a heap of salt). So basically both sides present mitigations (“my client had a clean record until now”, “the defendant was found liable for SA”, sort of thing). These may change the outcome of the sentencing, including specific dates for any period of incarceration.

There will also be part of this given over to why they defendant shouldn’t be found liable for also violating his gag order (very similar to the ones before, but this one is now he is a felon). And if the defense counsel can’t explain why he did that (which is pretty much indefensible) then he can be both found liable for the breach and have it impact his potential sentence.

I am not a lawyer, I am not American, this is just what I understand, until someone better comes along to correct me.