Lurker > adjl

If we're talking overall soundtrack, I'd give it to Hunchback. It's just so good. If we're just looking at the vocal songs, it's a harder choice, though Hunchback is still up there.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

More or less. I work for the government, so there are several layers of bureaucracy between me and the actual impact of what my department does, which makes it feel less rewarding, but it's important work and I feel like I make a meaningful contribution to those that I directly work with/for, so that's fun.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

We're expecting some this evening into tomorrow. The forecast is calling for 15-25 cm (6-10"), but who knows how much we'll actually get.

DrPrimemaster posted...

Why is RealFeel registered

Moreover, why are they trademarking the concept of windchill with a name that sounds more like a sex toy brand than a meteorological concept?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Far-Queue posted...

Even though I own the property (as long as I pay my taxes, anyway) I can't just build whatever I want. I'd have to look into the building statutes and zoning and everything, as well as submit plans to the town and put in for permits, but I believe in that town I would have to convert that particular building into a two-family condo if I were to go that route, which would require a near-complete remodel. Might be more cost-effective to demo and rebuild honestly. But any major construction would put my tenants out, which is something I wouldn't want to do.

That's why I think that sort of change has to happen at a regulatory level. If you've got two families (or three, or whatever) living in there now, I see no reason those units couldn't be sold to two families as condos without making any significant changes (except possibly adding extra meters or otherwise tweaking utility provision). The only thing preventing that is the local zoning regulations, and saying "this can be rented individually as flats but not sold individually as condos" is really pretty arbitrary.

There are indeed a lot of houses that have been broken up into apartments because they're too large for single-family homes, and I agree that pushing to have them remodelled into single-family homes and sold isn't really going to help the housing issue much, but treating those houses as rental units forever isn't the only way to move forward.

Incidentally, for what it's worth, I appreciate that you generally try to be a good landlord. You are still part of the problem of real estate investors injecting themselves into the market as middlemen and driving prices up by artificially inflating demand, but I recognize that your personal contribution to the problem is pretty minimal and that you can't really do much to change it yourself. Your properties would indeed just be bought up by somebody that's likely worse than you if you were to decide you didn't want to be a part of the paradigm anymore, so I'm not about to suggest that you sell when you're being a decent person about it.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Conner4REAL posted...

If you dont like the idea of renting then buy your own home. If you cant afford it then remember you would be out on the street if not for a landlord willing to rent.

On my current inflation-adjusted salary (which is pretty comfortably middle class), I could have bought a home in my city 9-10 years ago. I know this for a fact because one of my current managers did exactly that. I can't afford to now because greedy real estate investors - landlords included - have driven up housing prices to the point where home ownership is no longer attainable for even the middle class, leaving no alternative except to rent from those same investors that are charging so much that amassing the necessary capital to get out of renting is made even more difficult.

I don't know why you think I owe some debt of gratitude to landlords for selling me the only available solution to a problem they created for the sole purpose of selling me the solution, but it really doesn't reflect how anyone buying those solutions thinks. Pretty much all of them would very strongly prefer to have accessible alternatives. Long-term renting should not be the norm. It should remain an option, for those that are comfortable with the idea of paying a premium to insure themselves against the potential unpredictable costs of owning their own place, but the fact that so many middle class people don't have a viable path to home ownership is a very significant problem.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Fam_Fam posted...

yep, how about you confiscate the landlords' property and then put it back on the market at market prices. Then the renters can buy whichever house they were renting in and not have to pay the premium!

What do you think "market prices" would look like if every rental property suddenly went on sale and was no longer allowed to be rented out? Throw in some reasonable restrictions on what percentage of a region's housing any given individual or corporation can own so you don't get them all being bought up by development megacorps, and yes, most renters could afford to buy a property comparable to the one they were renting in. Heck, any renter that can afford their rent can afford to own the place they're renting even without crashing the market. If they couldn't, their landlord couldn't make money.

The service that landlords provide is to take on the risk of home ownership so that those without the necessary capital to cover unexpected expenses can live somewhere without having to worry about becoming homeless over a roof leak. Landlords provide insurance, not housing. On a long-term basis, though, the premium landlords charge exceeds the capital needed to have that security (since otherwise they wouldn't make money), so it's not a matter of the tenants being unable to afford those costs. It's a matter of the landlords being able to afford them first and turning a profit by exploiting those that weren't lucky enough to be born a few years earlier (both in terms of seizing the opportunity and in terms of taking advantage of lower prices when they bought).

Far-Queue posted...

Not sure Turt's situation but I own a three-story tenement. It's not a single-family home. I would have to either tear the house down and build a single-family unit, or completely renovate the house that's there and sell it as a very large house... It would not fit most families needs as it would be much larger (and as such more expensive) than what most families are looking for. Also probably wouldn't work because the people that would buy it would probably just convert it back to a three-family lol

Alternatively, sell it as three condos (or a triplex, or whatever you want to call it). That's going to require some regulatory changes, certainly, but the "problem" of so many houses being too large for single families can be solved without permanently keeping them as rental units. It just takes some actual will to do so from the government, who's rather enamoured with all the lobbying money they get from real estate investors and is therefore pretty keen on maintaining the status quo for as long as they can.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Conner4REAL posted...

some states are more tenant friendly than others but there is no logical reason a residential tenant should be given special rights than their commercial counterpart.

I mean, there is the whole "housing is a basic necessity while owning a business is not" thing, which might factor into the decision a little bit.

Conner4REAL posted...

a universal rating system would also help based on failure to pay and screwing around so those w low ratings required to post more security.

That said, I agree with this. Good landlords should be protected from bad tenants better than they are, just like good tenants should be protected from bad landlords better than they are. Any rating system needs protections in place to prevent abuses, since it's a given that slumlords would try to rate their tenants more poorly to justify charging them more, but that would be a solid step away from the current system of "I know you're a good tenant but I'm still going to jack your rent up to offset the risk of getting bad tenants in my other properties," which is unequivocally bullshit.

That said, long-term renting shouldn't even be a thing and is a symptom of a catastrophically broken system that's only getting worse as more and more properties are removed from the permanent housing market by real estate investors (which, in turn, is both a consequence of and a significant contributing factor to the growing wealth disparity).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

papercup posted...

I cant think of bigger leeches on society than landlords

But they create housing! Sure, they do so by buying it up and selling it back at a premium, which is technically the exact opposite of creating housing, but they still create housing!

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

agesboy posted...

pikmin 1 freaked the hell out of me as a kid

Burrowing Snagrets are outright traumatizing. So much death...

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kotenks posted...

I'll be happy to see it take its place next to Plessy V. Ferguson in garbage court rulings that the country should be deeply ashamed of.

Why should the country be ashamed of the ruling? Sure, it could stand to be properly codified into law instead of left as fairly flimsy precedent that's vulnerable to SCJ whims (particularly given the extent to which it's become an election issue), but it's overwhelmingly a good thing.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Blightzkrieg posted...

I'm stunned at how picky people are about a question-reader on a show they don't even watch

Mostly, everyone loved Alex and everybody that's trying to replace him is being held to that standard.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Gaawa_chan posted...

This doesn't work. Late-term abortions are done primarily due to something going wrong with the pregnancy. The reason the pregnancy got that far was because the pregnancy was wanted. Your example fails to consider the safety of the person being forced by the State to carry the pregnancy to term.

adjl posted...

medical necessity aside, obviously

I completely agree with you. I'm talking strictly about voluntary abortions, which, as you say, are exceedingly rare that late in the pregnancy. If it's a matter of saving the mother's life, anything is fair game.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

agesboy posted...

Your second example here is literally still propaganda, though. You seem to be under some sort of misunderstanding that propaganda inherently involves lying or manipulation, when it can just be recitation of facts with necessary context, and it can allow acknowledging counterarguments.

If you take that approach, though, "propaganda" refers to literally all persuasive speech, making the term thoroughly redundant. It would hardly be the first instance of English having a redundant word, but if its pejorative connotation grants it unique value by attaching an element of dishonesty to it, I'd say that's a connotation that makes the language work more smoothly and should therefore be considered the best interpretation.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Personally, I think the line should be drawn based on fetal viability (medical necessity aside, obviously). Get to a gestational age where the kid has a 60-70% chance of surviving if they were to be delivered normally, and after that, anyone that wants an abortion needs to be prematurely induced instead (which should be delayed by a few weeks from that point to improve the odds a bit) and deliver the baby for adoption. I think of abortion as being morally comparable to taking somebody off of life support, and I consider it immoral to take somebody off of life support without further care if there's a solid chance that that care could ensure their survival. That's not a perfectly clear-cut way to look at things, since there's room to debate what threshold for survival is reasonable, but I think it's a good starting point to work from.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

agesboy posted...

Do you consider anti-drunk driving campaigns to be worse than presenting "both" sides, though?

There isn't really another side, at least not one that isn't implied by doing a little basic math on drunk driving stats. If you say 30% of car accidents are caused by drunk driving, it's implicit that 70% are not, but presenting the inverse statistic is largely meaningless (though not entirely unlike what the "Covid has a 99% survival rate!" people are trying to do). The fact of the matter is that driving drunk significantly increases your risk of being involved in a crash. The other side of "you might be fine though" doesn't change that point, nor does it in any way affect the conclusion of "you should avoid driving drunk."

Now, if you start exaggerating the risk (such as "If you drive drunk you will crash and die")? That does become a problem, because it means people who look into the matter and find out that you're lying about it will be less inclined to trust your judgement and opinions and may be driven to defiance because they resent you. This is more or less what happened with anti-drug PSA's, as PO mentioned above.

agesboy posted...

It feels fairly reductive to imply manipulation is inherently negative, which is what tying it together with lying and manipulation (which both largely have very negative connotations) accomplishes.

At some level, you can say that any sort of persuasive speech is manipulative, because you're trying to change what the other person thinks, but I think the fundamental difference is whether you change their mind by getting them to think about the situation as a whole and agree with your assessment, or change their mind by manipulating the information they are presented with to lead them to a conclusion they wouldn't reach if they had the whole picture. The former is treating them like an intelligent person and engaging in intellectual discourse to arrive at the desired conclusion. The latter is hoping that they're stupid enough to be tricked into agreeing with you. Propaganda, by and large, falls under the latter umbrella, even if it's trying to lead to conclusions that we might agree with.

As an example, opponents of gay marriage often like to bring up statistics that show that children of gay parents tend to be worse off on average than children of straight parents (based on various metrics that I can't remember off the top of my head, but they aren't needed for this example). Dismissing those statistics outright by saying they're untrue - even for the sake of promoting the generally good idea that is gay marriage and parenthood - is dishonest and manipulative, and generally only galvanizes the opposition. Contextualizing those statistics by looking at how other factors affect child welfare, however, provides a basis for saying that the law should not prohibit gay parenthood any more than it prohibits black, poor, or single parenthood. There's also plenty of basis there to use those statistics to call for improved screening measures for prospective adoptive parents to ensure that they will beat the average, without needing to categorically rule out gay people regardless of how fit they are to adopt. That still might not convince gay marriage's opponents, since they'll cling to their own propaganda, but it does discredit them such that they may eventually relent, and in a public setting, it reduces the risk that they get any fence-sitters on board with them.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

The_tall_midget posted...

Throw more welfare at strong, independent wahmen and don't hold them accountable for their poor choices, got it.

It's a hell of a lot cheaper to buy an IUD every five years for everyone that can't afford one than it is to pay for one or more abortions (the next-cheapest option) or to pay for delivery (upwards of $30k) and raising the child (~$172k), to say nothing about the costs associated with higher crime rates among children of single, low-income mothers. In an ideal world, yeah, there'd never be any accidental pregnancies, but abstinence-focused approaches to reducing unwanted pregnancy rates have failed quite spectacularly, and even though birth control can reduce the risk to acceptable levels, it's never going to truly be zero. That's the simple reality of the situation, one which is not changed by making abortion illegal for punishing women that had sex that was meant to be non-procreative. You can either accept that reality and spend money sensibly to reduce the risk, or you can stamp your feet and whine about what you feel people "deserve" while spending significantly more money solving the much more expensive problems that are created by ignoring reality.

Quite simply, you're paying for it either way. Even if you stop providing welfare altogether, you end up paying for the costs associated with people stealing and otherwise committing crimes to survive, which are only exacerbated by throwing unplanned children into the mix. Might as well take a more cost-effective approach, especially considering that it's both cheaper and more effective. It just doesn't punish anyone for daring to do a sex, which is unacceptable for certain individuals.

As an aside, characterizing birth control subsidies as "welfare for women" really says a lot about your sex life. Protip: When women have sex where birth control is going to be helpful for reducing the risk of pregnancy, there's usually a dude involved who's benefiting roughly equally from her ability to have sex without worrying about that risk. Heck, in your case, I expect you'd benefit even more, since something tells me you aren't exactly the most generous lover.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Something like this?
https://www.newegg.ca/black-razer-tartarus-v2-mecha-membrane/p/32N-00B6-00010

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Can't wait for all the women who get investigated as "suspected aborters" for having a miscarriage.

That too. Questions of bodily autonomy and all those fun "rights" thingies aside, the practical reality of making abortion illegal is that every mother that miscarries has to be investigated as a potential abortion, likely in a manner that requires them to prove their innocence (as opposed to the accuser proving her guilt). That's just plain impractical, even without considering how downright cruel it is to torment grieving mothers with such accusations and investigations.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

As a concept, propaganda entails lying to some extent or another to convince people to behave in a way that they wouldn't have if you simply told them the unmanipulated truth (pretending for a moment that the concept of unmanipulated truth is something that actually exists). That's generally bad, even if it's being done for (what you feel is) a good cause, because lying to people has a tendency undermine their trust in you and/or encourage defiance for spite's sake. Informing people is good, but just informing people isn't propaganda.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

pionear posted...

Haven't played any of the ones I've got (mainly Control and Nioh) but really hate having two Gaming Stores on my Laptop...

That's why I'm a fan of GOG's Galaxy client. It lets you view your whole library with a single client, which is handy.

Of course, more often than not, I still just run Steam on launch and then just open Galaxy if I want to play a game from a different store, so it's still extra work, but it's still kinda handy.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

BEERandWEED posted...

If you think creating more joblessness is a good thing for society, you are very out of touch with reality, much like trumpers.

I agree. These people should get over themselves and start meeting the conditions of their employment so we can have a healthier economy.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

I forgot that Canadians could vote for Trump.

You say that, but an alarming number of our anti-vaxx folks are wearing MAGA hats to their protests. It's... not tremendously sensible, to say the least.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Generally no, but I don't mind it enough to not want to drink pulpy juice.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

By and large, the people that want Roe v. Wade overturned aren't interested in preventing abortions so much as they're interested in punishing women for having sex. There are plenty of changes that could be made to reduce the number of abortions that don't involve making it illegal: Comprehensive sex ed curricula, birth control subsidies, improved availability of prenatal/antenatal care (mostly to reduce the maternal mortality rate, which is higher in the US than most of the developed world) and coverage of costs associated with giving birth... All of these things reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancies and/or remove factors that discourage mothers from carrying their pregnancies to term, without having to punish anyone or push anyone into getting dangerous black market procedures out of desperation. Despite that, the pro-life crowd tends to be fervently against such measures, which tells you where they actually stand.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

captpackrat posted...

I actually just bought a Soul, and had that exact issue when I introduced myself on the phone. "Hi, it's *Name* calling, I was talking to you last weekend about buying your wife's Soul."

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Bulbasaur posted...

a new nintendo hardware something has been supposed to come out every year for the past 5 years

Heck, people have been saying that pretty much since the WiiU launched, given how much people wanted Nintendo to either scrap or totally revamp it from early in its life.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

HornedLion posted...

In Canada you cant collect if you get fired for that reason. Or so I hear.

You indeed cannot, since it's considered voluntarily leaving your job (by choosing not to meet a condition of employment).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

HornedLion posted...

Thanks for that. But isnt a new Nintendo console coming out next year?

They haven't announced anything, so I'd be surprised.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SantaKhala posted...

But at least the known side effects (heart inflammation and blood clots) are a small price to pay to prevent you from getting fired from your job, right?

Given that they are exceptionally rare (roughly 1/100,000 for each), that the vast majority of the handful of cases that do actually happen are mild and easily treatable, and that the risk of an unvaccinated person being killed by Covid itself is orders of magnitude higher than even just having those side effects (let alone dying or suffering other serious complications from them), I'd say not getting fired is really just a bonus.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Rittenhouse testified he was there to protect property and act as a medic. He also gave accounts of people he provided aide to. I don't see any mention of him being charged with perjury for this testimony.

Perjury requires you to prove that the person is lying under oath. If nobody can prove otherwise, he can say whatever he wants: a lack of perjury charges does not in any way indicate that an absolute truth has been told.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Still wouldn't matter, because the Greek version of the "Name of God" actually includes an Iota as well. And Iota is also from the middle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton#Dead_Sea_Scrolls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton#Patristic_writings

Symbolically, God is the Beginning, the End, and the Eternal Present.

Fine. Ruin my attempts to commit sacrilege with bell curves.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

It's not supposed to be exciting, at least. It's a very chill sandbox game with pretty limited/simplistic formal goals, mostly consisting of designing your island the way you want it. If you're expecting excitement, you're going to be bored. If you're just looking to chill virtually, less so.

NH is a very good AC game in many ways (though tool durability was a mistake, particularly not ever providing the option to make unbreakable tools), but at the end of the day it's still not going to be a super exciting game. A lot of the hype surrounding it was a product of when it came out: The pandemic had just really started to hit North America and everything was locking down. Everyone suddenly had a lot of free time and the real world became a stressful, scary, uncertain place. Being able to spend dozens of hours immersing oneself in a virtual world that was so chill and (mostly) predictable was exactly what many people needed, so the game sold like hotcakes.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zareth posted...

I mean it makes more sense for a virus to evolve into a less lethal form. If you keep killing your hosts you're going to die too.

That's the hope, but it's rarely so clear-cut, especially when you're dealing with something like Covid that is doing an exceptional job of proliferating despite being so deadly. The key thing viruses need to avoid is killing the host before they have an opportunity to spread. Killing hosts after the virus has been able to spread, however, is selectively neutral, since it has no impact on reproductive success, so becoming more or less deadly after transmission has occurred can go either way.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I haven't quite gotten all of them, but I have played like three, so there's that.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

UnMead posted...

Looked it up and sure enough its footage from an Australian right wing troll named Avi Yemeni who has falsified footage in the past and is even being sued by his own family members over all his lies as a far right media influencer

Oh hey, debunked without me even having to do anything. How convenient.

Got any non-falsified examples?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

BEERandWEED posted...

Also, when I do run into traffic, I'm not scared.

Do you wait for a suitable gap in the traffic so as to avoid endangering your life (also known as fearing death)? Or do you blindly rush in with no regard for danger because you genuinely don't fear death and therefore do nothing to avoid it?

UnMead posted...

I dunno if someone is sick then I sympathize with them, being sick really sucks and it can have an effect on your decision making skills without you even realizing it

Not to that much of an extent, and not when there are so many resources available to advise people on how to act (meaning people who are too addled by illness to make good decisions can fall back on the directions of others). Failing to appropriately respond to being symptomatic for Covid is irresponsible. Period.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

The_tall_midget posted...

but there will always be alternatives

There really won't. I'll be very surprised if there's more than a century left of automation being truly incapable of taking over every job in the world. I fully expect the people profiting from automation's rise to deliberately hamstring it so they can artificially retain their power for as long as possible, but that's not going to last forever (if nothing else, the extreme class divide that would create would likely result in a revolution).

The_tall_midget posted...

Also, thanks to the rise of failed ideologies, birth rates declined all over the west

You say this like you want to brainwash the population into wanting more children. That's not so much the result of any "ideology" as it is just letting people make their own decisions about whether or not they want kids. Given that the alternative is to force those that don't want kids to reproduce (whether directly or via cultural pressure), and that's outright dystopian, I don't think you should be complaining about that.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

papercup posted...

I hope that means he's volunteering to be expended.

I think it translates more as "I'm a terrible parent don't do anything that might make me need to take care of my kids."

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The least capable perform worst and thus are more often killed. It's one of the few ways in modern society to cull sub-par people.

So you consider draft dodgers to be the strongest men of all? They are, after all, the least likely to be killed in war, by an enormous margin.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

BEERandWEED posted...

@adjl

I beat frogger.

And I beat StarFox. Try to focus, dude.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

MeadCore posted...

I dont like how people are trying to blame and attack the people who got sick and came back home. People make plans months in advance for work or to visit family, they were vaccinated and they had no way to know they were sick with the virus until they were tested.

I feel like that really depends on how they responded to being sick. If they did everything they could to isolate once they started showing symptoms? That's fair, and it's unfortunate that it wasn't enough. If they went about their life as normal despite being symptomatic? That's less fair. It's common knowledge that the vaccine is not perfect protection and they were travelling to a region with a lower vaccination rate, so any symptoms could still be cause for concern and any failure to isolate is a matter of wilfully spreading the disease.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

BEERandWEED posted...

And why would I spend my time running through traffic?

Surely you've encountered at least one point in your life where you could have saved time crossing the street directly instead of going to a crosswalk and/or waiting for a light, yet chose not to. That is because you fear death, no matter how desperately you try to claim otherwise.

InfernalFive posted...

The dude's trolling but making an analogy comparing traveling (enjoyable) to playing in traffic (not so enjoyable) is kinda dumb lol

It's not an analogy. He explicitly stated that he doesn't fear death. I presented an example showing that he does. Nothing is being compared, he's just outright lying.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

BEERandWEED posted...

Also death and covid are nothing to fear when your faith in everlasting life through God is resolute.

So you say, yet I notice you don't make a habit of running out into highway traffic. I guess death is something to fear after all.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

BEERandWEED posted...

Another person to tag as sheeple.

So you've just completely abandoned all pretense of intelligently defending your position and have devolved into contrarian, one-line trolling?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Ozmose posted...

Australia is a great example of where things are starting to get out of hand.

How so? The pandemic isn't over. It's to be expected that efforts to bring the pandemic under control would be similarly ongoing.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.