6
He mentions flaws in the way people do things which can then be applied to it.
At least they're honest about it.
It's amazing you think checking on what someone has said about other topics is something a third party couldn't do.
They're confusing/conflating them with me (they've done that with a number of people), so I think I have the authority to say that last part is false (even if they often converse in tandem). Not that it's accurate anyways when factoring in who it's supposed to be about (it's not). It is no wonder people will think otherwise though when they go out of their way to only inquire one side.
Star Talk is a serial hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson which is kind of like what Hank Green does. He has been talking more and more lately though about the science of humanity and communication. I didn't know if I was allowed to give direct citations here, but it can be looked up.
Well now that you've asked, there's a connection issue. But the community in question goes by a different style of expression anyways. The two communities aren't really in a state of competition since they cater differently. Think of it as the uno reverso to the other one.
That much I did in a way. The small patio or opening outside the back door is closed off and has den features, and I left an old flat container out with water in it as well as some nuts.
Has he not heard of Ocarina of Time?
Musk's lawyers claim he has never used a computer (actually sounds accurate when you think about it)
Alright. Sorry about that.
2
A question for a certain Frenchfryenjoyer
(sh.itjust.works)
Let's say you make an association, and it aims to address errors in records that are supposed to detail wrongdoing. Naturally the same scrutiny extends to reports, right?
Let's say you have two sides that are at odds. However, they both recount things differently or interpret the same events differently. You would ask for proof, right?
My question for a certain @frenchfryenjoyer@lemmings.world is, do you have any smoking guns? All I see are arguments over pedantic details and claims where the so-called evidence is no more conclusive than the verdict at the beginning of 12 Angry Men (or My Cousin Vinny if you want to use a more fun example).
Some people have complained of others going around reporting everything they say in certain communities as a way to get them banned everywhere, often depending on the mods' carelessness over relevance or investigation.
view more: next ›
Most things are relevant to certain points, but most things also aren't relevant to all the points.