_a_a_a_

Depends. It can have an effect.

Interesting indeed, a triumph, no.

I found the stuff about the cultural revolution by far the most interesting, finally I could understand it - that there was nothing to understand, there was no underlying rationale; it was just madness.

If it makes you feel any better https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2024/03/29/more-bodies-mo...

Create a company, or do you mean buy it 'off the shelf'?

Debating is difficult enough with the ambiguity in natural languages. If you don't even try and be plain what you're trying to say, difficulty will be compounded. If you were agreeing, why not say "I agree" or "I agree but what about..."? I don't know what a totemic representation is, elephant metaphors were ambiguous (obviously the civilians suffer most, I know it, you know that I know it, so what point are you trying to make?), Quoting stuff in Greek and then telling me to google it instead of saying it plainly – not wise.

You made a simple thing difficult (and yes, doubtless I'm partly to blame as well).

'spread the blame among civilians' was the wrong phrase. It should have bee impact, not blame.

> You'd already know that if you'd bothered to read what I wrote instead of whinging about it.

I'll openly admit that I often don't read things carefully but in this case I don't believe you were making things clear at all. Quoting stuff in Greek to me doesn't actually help comprehension.

> Your turn. Answer me this: Who did I call the elephants, and who did I call the grass?

You said "My position[0] is: When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers" which you then said of "(Answer: civilians are the grass, combatants are the elephants — and it case even that was not clear, note that I did not say whose civilians and whose combatants, this is deliberated because the answer to that is simply "yes")."

And this is a relevant because you are trying to spread the blame among civilians, instead of clearly saying which civilians.

The Hamas attack on civilians killed/injured about 4,600 I think <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israe...>

As of yesterday, over 33,000 Palestinians had been killed and 75,000 injured. There is deliberate starvation brewing over there and the hospitals had been mostly or entirely smashed. Israel has committed war crimes. The IDF are turning a blind eye or even helping illegal settlers on Palestinian land. There's more.

Just because there is blame on both sides doesn't mean the blame is equal on both sides.

Try answering: is Israel's response proportionate and acceptable or not?

I don't expect any clarity because ISTM you are just trying to fog the issue but happy to be wrong.

If I've got it wrong, perhaps cos you blather. Get to the point and I'll retract & apologise if it's warranted. Me:

> And the reality is...? What? Be specific.

You didn't answer.

And the reality is...? What? Be specific.

> what you wrote initially looks like something each of the big groups on this topic can find something disagreeable with

So ignore what other people think - make your own point based on facts.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of telling the world they should look away from what's being done in Palestine because war is dirty, but should sympathise with Israel after Hamas's awful attack, because war is dirty.

You don't care about Palestinians but you expect the world to care about Israel, despite committing obvious warcrimes.

I very much want peace for both sides, a stable society and good life for everyone, Arab and Israeli. You clearly don't share that wish. You have no morals, no moral authority, and what you are doing is putting Israel's future at greater risk than Hamas could, but you're so shortsighted and self-centred you're blinded to that.

I found that putting solid facts in front of Israeli supporters just got me downvotes. Anyway

>> It is very convenient to criticize it when you're not in it

> Israel 'criticised' Hamas for their monstrous attack six months ago, started a war over it. Perhaps you're saying Israel should have just accepted it?

That is not rhetoric but a straightforward question.

3 downvotes in 16 minutes, well I never! (but oddly no other response)

I'm rather unclear about the speed of regrowth. From one source (the web?) It was a matter of years, yet talking to a herpetologist (edit: hepatologist. Blame voice recognition) in a pub, she said it can regrow 80% of itself in a matter of weeks. Assuming a healthy liver, how fast is regrowth?

Assuming a cirrhosed liver , how would that affect regrowth time? TIA.

> It is very convenient to criticize it when you're not in it

Israel 'criticised' Hamas for their monstrous attack six months ago, started a war over it. Perhaps you're saying Israel should have just accepted it?

You know, perhaps this whole mess Israel is now involved in is a product of its own behaviour, and killing of loads more Palestinians is not likely to bring peace but further hate and evil.

That was a really, really good answer, thanks.

I've never heard of a conan language, and a couple of URLs to some bad recipes would not go amiss.

Thanks. It's that very subjectivity that makes me doubt we should classify things as art because other people say so. Perhaps that is the core of it. I don't like going into art galleries and being expected to like a picture because it is 'art' because someone else said it is. I expect to like it because I like it and nothing else, and nobody else needs to like it just because I do.

Touche!

That's a lot of emotive language, can you actually link to some actual examples.

Can you point to 3 python foot guns, for instance?

Exactly. It's precisely this about art that I find frustrating, not the inability to pin it down but the desire to expand the definition to fit anything someone wants, thus debasing the concept of art.

If art is valuable (and I most definitely believe it is) should be treating it differently I feel; a little less 'precious' and whole lot more discerning.

> hI am still not sure what the killer app was for the Alpha

It was a general purpose processor, talking about a single killer app doesn't make sense. It was designed for speed and expandability and as such seemed very successful.

> The CDC 6600 was really a rather simple machine; ... The CRAY-I was even simpler

Pretty bold claim, can you explain why you believe this is so?

> But Intel brought it off.

Not by buying up and killing the Alpha AXP, oh no.

Methinks you need a mutex here.

Formic acid for the sourness I guess.

So 12,000,000 nanometre wires (in imperial)

Well said. This type of writing is perfectly doable but it does take effort and a lot of experience.

Not to be a dick (oh, go on then!):

> but there wouldn't be anything about the fire's phenotype that would help you come to that conclusion

but... but... cloning!

But yes, we could do this all day and still get nowhere. We, collectively, are missing something but I don't know what.

Should it? Doesn't it inherit 'fireness'?

I do know what you're saying but it's so easy to argue the other way too