StringJunky

I think T. May would like to go back but she at least understands the point about honouring the referendum and has expressly said so several times. Some people have principles.

Not cited? It's history not science. I quoted the salient part, so no need to go there if you don't want to. I can remember being annoyed myself then, and I was 10.

There is much lamenting the skullduggery of the Leave campaign but consider the same in how we were conned into it: So, if one is to honour the original desires of the great majority of the populace of the day, we should leave. Some politicians fought hard to join; it was not the prevailing sentiment of the population.

Oh right. OK.

English is his second language.

You are assuming the Russians had a significant enough effect, which I doubt. Regardless of my own feelings at the time, there was a very strong current for leaving.

How do you work that one out?

There's no equivalence because this is a one-time (supposedly) referendum about one issue that has been decided... and should be honoured.

wtf are you on about?

If we have a second referendum, subsequent ones will mean little. I voted to stay but lost. Given we voted to leave, I would vote leave to honour the first vote. I feel the consequences of a second vote will hurt the UK far longer than leaving Europe. Our global reputation depends on being actively democratic and consistent...it's a matter of honour.

Duh!

I think you should have added: "...of the same size".

I was being safe.

I would bet it's on maximum for 99% of people.

Watson is clearly a case that illustrates that just because someone discovers something doesn't mean that they understand it.

I think they were there when there was no ice. Tardigrades normally inhabit moss. They can survive extreme conditions, even become dessicated.

It must feel doubly strange being mocked by a bunch of immigrants kids on ones own land. To buckle now would be to sow the seeds of more of that behaviour because, like a temper-tantrum child, he would see that it works.

Yes, I used it too. I think some people here still say it.

I'd just add to the closed-thread notice that one is free to open a new thread on the topic. Yeah, the time limit wants be where one would generally consider that it has reached ''zombie'' status.

99.99% of people won''t care; it's a non-issue.

Faced with a solved, closed thread that wanted bring up, I would open a new thread. This idea is actually implemented on sites like StackExchange. They also close saying: This thread has been closed to further replies because it has attracted low quality answers. This is what usually happens when a thread has been archived after a time; people come in later and introduce off-tangent, irrelevant stuff. If a reasonable time limit after the last comment could be introduced where it is then closed, that would stymie spammers.

Yes. It helps to know quickly that one can find an answer.

No person is perfect all their life and his thought captured at that moment was.

This is the problem: what will it take? When it hits them in the pocket, I suppose. I'm pretty sure his presidency is going to end in disgrace though. My hunch is that Mueller knows how bad he is and won't let go, if he''s allowed to, until he's nailed him. I think the investigation has been running for far too long for the accusations against Trump to be tenuous.

This was my immediate thought. Plain as day. There is no depth this man won't stoop to.