Peterkin

What is an "event"? By what criteria do we differentiate discrete events from the event before, the event after, and all the simultaneous events that are taking place at the same time?

Machine-compressed and frozen patties of fairly high fat content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LGh7p23_I4 I bet they put them on the grill still frozen (which also works with the despised veggie burger), time the cooking and turn only once. I would probably just decant the potatoes, hot and fast from the oil, into a metal or ceramic bowl with the herbs, salt, grated garlic, fried onion or whatever you like, cover with a tight lid and toss vigorously.

asparagus and cheese sauce...dark chocolate sauce....apricot jam and ground walnut.... cottage cheese with lemon zest and sugar....mushroom paprika with sour cream... ...snack time!

Thin, long spatula, or the perfectly-shaped, perfectly smooth, perfectly greased pan. I recently got one good enough to flip one-handed, up in the air. There's nothing like having the right tool!

I meant in the cooking, not the mixing. The more important thing, probably, is to really jam those patties together tight and firm, so the breadcrumbs can get a grip on the meat. And if you think beef is a challenge, try frying an intact quinoa, beet or soy burger! (pork and turkey are easy; veggie is really hard!)

It may also be that the meat is very lean and dry. Breadcrumbs, oatmeal or a little cornmeal will certainly help, as will the egg. Also, if you form the patties quite firm and flat, then refrigerate them for half an hour, they might hold their shape better. If all else fails, lay them flat on an ungreased baking sheet, in the oven, at 350-375 F, flipping after about 15 minutes. Less handling = less breakage.

Yes, it does, explicitly in the word 'claimed'! What I wonder is: Why? What purpose does it serve to indulge in vague and mostly ridiculous speculation as to the veracity of an event so long ago and so irrelevant to any major issue of today? And why that particular mission, rather than the other 5? Do you have a point to make?

I can help with this one. It doesn't wave back or forth; it has a ripple. When you fake something, you can correct mistakes; a flaw is one good indication of authenticity.

Pass. I get your drift and will now move upwind.

You mean it was impossible, in knowledge of the history of US police vis a vis African Americans, days after one policeman had brutally and publicly murdered and African American, to anticipate that more arrests of people who could not afford bail would take place in a foreseeable future - unless the same person who anticipated such arrests was at the same time, but promoting violence by protestors, without using one single word about the police, the right wing or any kind of violent act? Whereas: There is nothing unusual about bail funds https://bailfunds.github.io/ Yes, I might at that!

Morally, no: entertaining temptation is only 10% percent of transgression; enetrtaining others with your temptation may only amount to another 10%, but is appreciated nonetheless. Not legally, either, come to that, unless you actually told known sting-ray-owning partisans to contribute and then they or their fish actually stung someone going about his lawful occasions.

I stand corrected. I inadvertently referenced some of his earlier statements. I'll rephrase the question accordingly: In what way is asking to help raise bail [a standard legal procedure of extracting money from people in custody, whether they have any money or not] for people have been arrested for whatever reason and by whatever means (see Amnesty International documentation of police behaviour) promoting violence?

Where? Where!? In what way is asking to help raise bail [a standard legal procedure of extracting money from people in custody, whether they have any money or not] for people have been arrested for whatever reason and by whatever means (see Amnesty International documentation of police behaviour) condoning violence?

That's part of their motivation, of course. Some law-enforcement sources regard their participation at various BLM events as a direct response to Trump's calls to action. There is a long history behind his relationship with racist extremists. https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech and also a recent history specifically aimed at BLM https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/01/over-over-trump-has-focused-black-lives-matter-target-derision-or-violence/ https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/25/trump-attacks-black-lives-matter-racial-justice-movement.html As for what happens next: If he gets the chance and they're still at large and loyal, it escalates. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/06/pitts-jan-6-insurrection-a-dress-rehearsal-for-something-far-worse/

That's a tiny sample of the available information. Many sources, many points of view. If you want to know, you can find out. How does that even come up as a possible question? Has anyone attempted to justify it? The correlation between Trump's calls to action and the actions his people have taken is evident. How events during the BLM protests relate to those actions is established. A time-line is drawn. Believe what you choose.

That one's fairly thorough as regards police violence. This one lists a number of specific incidents by organized Trump supporters. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/22/white-supremacists-rightwing-domestic-terror-2020 says: Emboldened? Hell, yeah!

Lots, but it's available to anyone who actually gives a damn.

I didn't imply anything. I questioned, then rejected your presentation of the cause-effect relationship of events. Any way you mix it around, the original statement: did attribute the earlier instance of violence to the BLM protesters, whereas the bulk of it it was in fact carried out by right wing extremists.

Perhaps we've been informed by different sources. Nothing. All except using that nebulous idea as either justification or emboldnment for the January 6 insurrection, which, I repeat, had nothing at all to do with protest and was all bout overturning a legitimate election.

This was the part with which CharonY and I took issue, especially when followed up by: It's quite the wrong way around. At each of those protests, it was they themselves, the militant right fringe, who committed violent acts and got away with it. Their violent action were never in response to "Media and Politicians behaving badly"; the bad behaviour on the part of politicians and some segments of the media was to condone the right wing violence. The justification for attacking the Capitol had nothing to do demonstrations of signs anybody held up anywhere: it was Trump telling them to seize power that was rightfully theirs, from the democratically elected government that stole it from them. Whole different dynamic. I never claimed that you ever claimed; merely attempting to clarify which end of the stick is the handle.

Not everything else... but partly also that. The same groups who staged the attack on the Capitol were responsible for much or most of the violence at BLM protests and other confrontations, like the ones in Charlottsville, and Michigan, and suffered very few consequences. https://www.propublica.org/article/sense-of-entitlement-rioters-faced-no-consequences-invading-state-capitols-no-wonder-they-turned-to-the-u-s-capitol-next As for the Capitol siege, they were expressly invited by Their President. How much more emboldenment do they need?

Sorry. My cursor skipped a line on the second pass and I didn't notice. It jumps around sometimes when the mouse needs its feet washed. Will attend to it right away! Correction:

Why not? Why would a past illness disqualify an otherwise sound candidate? If FDR was physically fit enough, I guess so was JFK and so is Biden. I don't believe that's related to treatment for skin cancer.

If you ever get the chance again, change doctors. I gave you a couple of links that explain it. Several of us have explained various aspect of the identification and classification process. Oh well....

Something different. The authorities would be too well prepared, get the barricades up, choke street traffic to observable single file, install metal detectors, etc. Plus, the insurgents' Glorious Leader isn't in the White House to cheer them on and retard the defence efforts. (Remember Trump started organizing that mess back in March.) If he is in the White House, they won't need to attack the Capitol; it'll be their officially designated rest room. The next battle will be somewhere else, probably one of the state legislatures, or more probably staged as spontaneous against a demonstration in support of the civil rights of some group they're trying to disenfranchise.