I think you might be letting the dead off too easy just using the current population. You think we all just fell out of a coconut tree?

Yeah, people make up bs, other people spread it, old guy embarrasses himself saying it on tv, bomb threats. I have to be missing a step here.

Don't know about him, but the example I try to plant in people's minds is that early in his presidency, he wanted money for a wall, democrats wanted "dreamers" to get citizenship (and every state has infrastructure projects they want). Seemed like great deal making ground to me. I was prepared at the time to be wrong about him and waited to see anything come out along the lines of a bargain. But he proved unable to do it.

I've heard that "no scope" detail elsewhere too. But would love to confirm it or have it disproven.

It is the detail that I keep coming back to that would indicate something about his state of mind, lack of rationality, lack of time, something.

I get what your point, and is a fair one. Except there is evidence that he wouldn't have been voting their way, since he was thinking of leaving the court, or at least gave that impression to others to get a raise. Then the gift tap turned on...

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-complaints-sparked-resignation-fears-scotus

Is akin to people complaining about how the posts in a thread don't all agree on something, so the forum and its participants are hypocritical.

If their art doesn’t make enough money then it’s clearly not in enough demand.

Unless you burden the word 'enough' with far too much work in that sentence, then that implication doesn't necessarily follow. It is possible for something to be in great demand by those without money to spend. Furthermore, it is possible for there to be issues with the logistics between the source and the demand (e.g. demand is very physically distributed, or temporally limited and/or sporadic).

Money is a very particular way of empowering and aggregating only some demand. It ties the power of demand to history and not moral or egalitarian considerations for one.

Well. I've seen some construct a scenario in which some bits of kompromat were leveraged to shift the loyalties of and/or social circles around key players, using just what was public record.

When it first took big bites out of Firefox, it wasn't slight at all. I have only my hazy human memory on this, but some pals and I ran a test script at the time. Iirc, Chome would routinely load enough to start reading in 2 seconds while Firefox was more like 6 on average with our site list and went over 10 way too often to ignore.

It had been very easy before that to blame the sites for all the crud they were larding in. But it was like Google's clean, fast search page compared to Yahoo's "junk you don't need" frontpage all over again. Chrome won on speed fair and square.

Thus ends this yarn by one internet fogey.

I would love to see a debate forum that cut each person's mic after a single point. But I doubt any of the people I want to see in such a forum would ever risk participating.

I don't know. Seems pretty cowardly to me. So does asking for delayed trial dates.

(continuing the headline)... And Produce Some Sweet Album Cover Art